MASS. 


I  '.\TH01IC 

BOSTON". 


MAKY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTiS 


AKD 


HER  LATEST  ENGLISH  HISTORIAN. 


A  NARRATIVE  OF  THE  PRINCIPAL  EVENTS  IN 
THE  LIFE  OF  MARY  STUART;  WITH 
SOME  REMARKS  ON  MR.  FROUDE'S 
HISTORY  OF  ENGLAND. 


BY 

JAMES  F.  MELINE. 


NEW  YORK: 
THE  CATHOLIC  PUBLICATION  SOCIETY, 


9  Warren  Street. 
1871. 


9  23  .1 


DA 

MS 
l?7/ 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1871,  bj 

James  F.  Meline, 
in  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington. 


MAR  I  "7 1989 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

Popularity  of  Mr,  Fronde's  History.  —  Impartiality  difficult.  —  Char- 
acteristics of  Karlier  Volumes.  —  Treatmetit  of  Henry  and  Eliza- 
beth.—>ome  Defects.  —  His  Method.  —  Psychological  School. — 
A  few  Liberties  

CHAPTER  II. 

History  of  Sixteenth  Century.  —  Mr.  Froude's  Knowledge  of  it.  — 
The  Cobliam  Case.  —  Peine  Forte  et  Dure.  —  An  Instance. — 
Torture  and  the  Hack.  —  Rack  busy  under  Elizabeth.  —  Torture 
approved. —  Seiilimcntality. —  I  homas  More.  —  Katherine  of  Ar- 
agon.  —  Anne  IJoleyn. —  Faint  Priise.  —  Insinuation.  —  A  Damag- 
ing Review. —  Kea>oMs  for  .Judicial  Murder.  —  Optimist  or  Pessi- 
niistV — Our  Ntible  Hal.  — Poor  Laws.  —  The  Inevitable. — 
Thomas  ( Iromweil.  —  People  who  lose  their  Wav.—  Henry  s  Wives. 

—  Mortality  explained.  — Case  altered.  — Fatal  Necessity  of  Mis- 
take.—  An  Indictment  .11 

CH.APTER  in. 

An  Early  Departure —  Clever  Device.  —  Sentimentality.  — A  Perfect 
Child. —  Suppression. —  Birth,  Parentage,  and  Education.  — A  very 
Little  One. —  Court  of  Catherine  de  Medicis.  —  Mary  Stuart  never 
there.  —  True  Position  of  Catlierine. —  Testimony  of  French  His- 
torians.—  Mary  Stuart's  Dependence.  —  Deep  Plotting         .       .  22 

CHAPTER  IV. 

Mary's  Educa'ion. —  Marriage. —  Her  Health.  —  "Sir.  Fr  uide's  Views. 
— Sensual  and  Devihsh  — Annoying  Ambassador.  —  Candid  State- 
ment.—  Mary's  Prec  ocious  Politics.  —  A  Young  Girl's  daft  and 
Deceit.  —  Elizabeth  refuses  Safe  Conduct.  — Mary  embarks  for 
Scot  and.  —  Sentimentality  vs.  Business.  —  Something  well  done. 

—  James  Stewart.  —  His  Duplicity  30 

CHAPTER  V. 

Arrival  in  Scotland. —  The  Situation —  Scotch  Nobles. —  Mary's  First 
Public  Act. —  Interview  with  John  Knox. — St.  Paul. —  Relent- 


PAGE 


1 


iv 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


less  Big-otry. —  How  to  hide  a  Purpose.  — Another  Knox  Interview. 

—  Mr.  Hosack's  Work.  —  Broken  Heads  and  Bloody  Ears.  —  Relig- 
ious Toleration.  —  Knox's  Denunciations.  —  Air  Drawn  Crowns. 

—  Lesson  in  History.  —  Reading  Secret  Thoughts.  —  Earl  of  Hunt- 

ly. — Elizabeth. —Murray's  Power  40 


CHAPTER  VL 

Quotation  Marks.  — John  Knox's  Sermon.  — A  Fancy  Sketch.  — Vio- 
lent Weeping.  — Admirable  Actress. — A  Failure.  —  Knox  and  Mur- 
ray fall  out.  —  The  Cause.  —  Spell  of  Enchantress.  —  John  Knox 
►  looks  through  a  Person.  — Cleopatra  Tableau.  —  Queen's  Personal 

Habits. —  Graceful  Self-indulgence.  —  Proofs  of  same         .      .  54 


CHAPTER  VIL 

David  Riccio.—  Purism. —  Moray  or  Murray  ?  —  Both  well.— Splendid 
Passage. —  Murray's  Conduct.  —  Historian  maltreats  his  Friends. — 
Suitors  for  Mary's  Hand.  —  Tone  of  Philosophic  Historian.  —  The 
Worthless  Leicester.  —  Plot  to  imprison  Mary.  —  She  marries 
Lord  Darnley.  —  Tumultuous  working  of  Imagination.  —  Catholic 
League.  —  Question  of  Toleration.  —  Question  of  Sincerity.  —  Mr. 
Fronde's  Trouble.  — Uncertain  Twilight.  —  A  Silly  Story.  —  Hear- 
sa}'.  —  Murray's  Insurrection. — Murrny's  Head. —  What  Mary 
said.  —  Mr.  Froude's  Record  not  recorded.  —  What  is  Treason?  — 
Rebellion  crushed.  —  Eyes  that  glare,  glitter,  and  flash.  — What  a 
Wonderful  History!  62 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

Mr.  Froude  explains. — Randolph  Letter  non  est.  —  Substitute  of- 
fered. —  Bedford  Letter.  —  It  has  not  the  Words  cited.  —  Singular 
Appeal  to  Prejudice.  —  Who  wrote  "  She  said  she  could  have  no 
Peace?  "  —  Where  does  Mr.  Froude  obtain  it?  —  History  or  Ro- 
mance.—  Randolph  about  the  Court.  —  "  In  connection  with  Bed- 
ford." —  Who  was  Bedford  ?  —  Travestie  of  History.  —  Apprecia- 
tion of  Difficulty.  —  Bedford  Letter.  —  Certified  Copy.  —  Imagina- 
tive Historian  77 

CHAPTER  IX. 

Murray  and  Elizabeth.  —  Unwelcome  Guest.  —  Randolph. —  Trea- 
sonable Practices.  —  Bags  of  Specie.  —  Lady  Murray.  —  Roseate 
Sketch.  —  Randolph  dismi-sed.  —  His  Character.  —  Elizabeth.  — 
What  she  swears  to.  —  Admirable  Actress  —  Court  Comedy. — 
Christian  Regina  Cceli. —  The  Deadly  Coil.  —  Bond  for  the  Slaugh- 
ter.—  A  Swift  Messenger. — Conventional  Forms.  —  Objects  of 
the  Plot.  —  General  Fast.  —  John  Knox.  —  Historical  Verdict     .  90 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


V 


CHAPTER  X. 

PAGE 

Murder  of  Riccio.  —  Assassin  Hero.  —  Murderer's  Testimony.  —  Will 
be  known  hereafter.  —  Literary  Work-bench. —  IIow  Mr.  Fromle 
manufactures  Evidence.  — Mosaic  of  Malice.  —  Threat  of  ]\Iunler. 

—  Posthumous  Prophecy. —  One  Correct  Statement. —  Festive  His- 
torian cages  a  IJird.  —  Snakes,  Birds,  and  Panthers.  —  Lamblike 
Lords  —  Mary's  Death  provided  for.  —  Appalling  Wickedness.  — 
Wile  elopes  with  Husband.  —  The  Man  just  over  the  Border. — 
"  Free  and  Generous  Nature  "  votes  for  his  Sister's  Death.  —  Mary 
escapes.  —  Inconsolable  Historian.  —  Executes  Fantasia  with  "  In- 
creclible  Animosity." — Awa}^,  Away!  —  Mary  does  not  write  a 
Letter.  —  Picturesque  Insanity.  —  Letter  to  Elizabeth.  —  Inventive 
Historian. —  Must  History  continue  to  be  written  in  this  Way?  — 
Munler  of  Black. — Invention  and  Fact.  —  Official  Record. — 
Letter  of  Bishop  of  Norwich  to  Bullinger  98 

CHAPTER  XL 

Murray  all  Powerful.  —  Jedburgh.  —  Story  of  the  Queen's  Ride. — 
Buchanan,  Robertson,  and  Froude.  —  Botliwell  and  John  Elliott.  — 
Desperate  Fight. —  Elliott  slain.  — Only  "  a  Scuffle."  —  Thieves  in 
Elizabeth's  Pay.  —  How  History  is  written.  —  Garbled  Citation.  — 
Bothwell's  Character.  — Alloa  Story?  —  A  Letter.  —  Darnlej^'s  Fear 
of  the  Lords. —  Prurient  Insolence.  —  The  Queen's  Retinue. — Dy- 
ing Bfd.  — Craigmillar.  —A  Dark  Suggestion.  — Inverted  Commas. 

—  Infeli  'itous  Translation.  —  Hard  of  Hearing.  —  Murray's  Posi- 
tion.—  His  Declaration.  —  Suggestion  as  to  Darnley. —  Mary's  Last 
Will.—  A  Bond.  —  Historian's  Duty.  —  Belief  with  the  Will.  —  :\Ir. 
Fronde's  Dilemma. — Three  Inventions. —  Baptism  of  Prince. — 
Pardon  of  Riccio  Murderers.  — Darnley  dreads  Morton's  Return   .  112 

CHAPTER  XII. 

Blunder  and  Invention.  — Popish  Ceremony.  — Lords  and  Ladies.  — 
Curious  Infelicity.  —  Desperation.  —  Feared  for  his  Life.  —  Darnley 
leaves  Caurt.  —  His  "  Wrongs."  —  Lennox  neglected.  —  Marj'  to 
blame.  —  Plots  and  Pardons.  —  Poor  Boy  !  —  Humanity  vs  Cruel- 
ty.—  Darnley's  Character.  —  His  Conduct. — Queen's  Unhappi- 
ness.  —  A  Storv  about  Poison.  —  How  proved.  —  Cato  the  Censor. 

—  Said  it  was  Small-pox.  —  Bothwell  Scandal.  —  Contemporary 
Evidence. —  Is  there  any? — Reporters  and  Spies.  —  Queen's 
Household. — Queen's  High  Standing.  —  Morton  returns.  — Both- 
well  and  Maitland.  —  Plot  to  murder  Darnley.  —  Warrant  tor  his 
Arrest.  —  Queeh  refuses  to  sign.  —  Spies  and  Tale  Bearers.  — 
George  Douglas.  — Morton's  Participation.  —  Queen's  Letter.  — 
Not  Clever.—  Letters  to  Darnley.  — Visits  Darnley.  —  Her  Bearing. 

—  Conduct  of  Darnley.  —  His  Declaration.  —  Crawford  and  Mr. 
Froude.  —  Darnley's  House  132 


vi 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

PAGE 

Certainties  of  History.  —  Philosopliical  Reflections.  —  Mary  goes  to 
Glat^gowr.  —  Callander.  —  t'ravvt'urd.  —  Whose  Envoy  ?  —  Rewards 
of  .Merit.—  Fantastic  Sltetch.—  l'sycholo<;y.—  Odd  Glitter.—  Skil- 
ful riayer.  —  The  Casket-letters.  —  Over  iiasty. —  Promise  broken. 

—  Flace  and  I'lan.  — Darnley  goes  to  Edinoiirgh.  —  Nelson's  Dep- 
osition.—  An  Early  Supper.  —  A  (irand  l}ani[Liet.  —  Clernault's 
Letter.  —  Murder  of  iJamley.  —  Fur  Wrapper  and  I'ifty-ninth 
Psahn.  —  Threat  of  Revenge.  —  Wlio  is  Caklerwood?  —  Correct 
Citation.  — A  Sound  Sleep.  —  Summing  up.  —  Scottish  Lords.  — 
Queen's  Advisors.  —  Placards.  —  Proclamation.  —  Warning  from 
Paris.  —  Murray's  Absence. —  Lennox  sent  for.  — Spanish  Coldness. 

—  The  Cause.  — A  Mystery.  —  Reports  as  to  the  Murder      .  . 

CHAPTER  XIV.' 

Crawford's  Testimony. —  Tallies  exactly.  —  Coincidence  explained. — 
Device  of  Forger.  —  Powerful  Reasoning. — An  Invincible  Argu- 
ment. —  Overwh'  Iming  Exactness.  —  Deposition  of  Paris.  —  How 
taken.  —  Why  not  used.  —  lucon-istencies.  —  Contradicted  b}'  Mur- 
ray's Diary.  —  How  was  Darnley  killed  V  —  Blown  up  or  stran- 
gled? —  Ihree  Plots.  —  Contemporary  Testimony.  —  Darnley's 
Papers.  —  Mr.  Caird's  Book.  —  Motives  of  Murderers.  —  Murray's 
Absence.  —  His  Knowledge  of  the  Plot.  —  Unable  to  interfere.  — 
Dying  Depositions.  — The  Witnesses. —  They  accuse  the  Lords. — > 
Leslie's  Challenge.  —  Other  Testimon}^  157 

CHAPTER  XV. 

Killigrew  searches  the  Truth.  —  Dines  with  Darnley's  Murderers.  — 
Murray  pretends  to  search.  —  The  Clique.  —  Killigrew  Letter. — 
Two  Versions  —  Suspicions  but  no  Proof.  —  Atmosphere  of  False- 
hood. —  Queen's  Seclusion.  —  Seton.  —  Drurv's  Discovery.  — 
Mar}?- desires  to  go  to  France.  —  Murray.  —  He  leaves  Scotland. 

—  His  Last  Will.  —  Bothwell's  Trial.  —  English  Marshal's  Report. 

—  A  Remarkable  Photograph.  —  Mr.  Fronde's  Coloring.  —  Both- 
well's Judges.  —  The  Parliament.  —  Murray  cared  for        .       .  172 


CHAPTER  XVL 

Ainslie  Bond.  —  No  Supper.  —  Bothwell's  Marriage  with  Queen  rec- 
ommended by  the  Nobles.  —  Did  Murrav  sign  ?  —  Foreign  Guard. 

—  Literary  Manipulation.  —  How  Mother  tried  to  poison  her  Child. 

—  Mary's  Abduction.  —  Dunbar.  —  Sir  James  Melville.  —  His 
Account.  —  Testimon}'.  —  The  Outrage.  —  Marriage.  —  One  Honest 
Man.  —  The  Queen's  Despair.  —  Mary's  Letter.  —  Cool  Presump- 
tion. —  More  Manipulation  184 


/ 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


vii 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

PAGB 

Fresh  I'lot  of  the  Lords.  —  The  Rising.  —  Carberry.  —  Bothweil's 
Flight.  —  Mary  goes  to  the.  Camp  ot"  the  Lords.  —  They  profess 
Allegiance  and  Respect.  —  Horrible  Scene.  —  Brutal  Conduct.  — A 
Letter  which  was  not  written.  —  Camden's  Testimony.  —  Arrest  of 
Captain  Cullen.  —  His  Disclosures.  —  How  Dariiley  was  killed.  — 
Culltrn  strangled.  —  Queen  at  Lochleven.  —  Crai^millar  Bond. — 
Baliour  bribed.  —  Murray's  Administration  rewards  Darniey's 
Murderers.  —  Dares  not  touch  them.  —  Silver-casktt  Letters. — 
Popular  Hatred  of  Murray. —Mary  escapes  from  Loclileven. — 
The  Protestant  Nubility.  —  The  Armies.  —  Figlit  at  Langside.  — 
Mr.  Froude's  Keapers.  —  Mary  trusts  to  Elizabeth        .       .       .  195 

CHAPTER  XVIIL 

The  Casket-letters.  —  Opinions  and  Authorities.  —  How  their  Au- 
thenticity is  discussed. — Historian  weaves  the  Tainted  Papers. 

—  Desultory  Muttering.  —  Genius  of  Shakespeare.  —  External 
History.  —  Pretended  Discovery.  —  Absence  of  Contemporary  Ev- 
idence.—  Casket  not  heard  of  till  after  Death  of  Dalgleish. — 
Further  Proof.  —  Balfour  and  Morton.  —  Forgery  explained.  — 
Bothwell.  —  Morton  and  Murray.  —  The  Juggling  Box.  —  Some 
Casket  recovered.  —  Bothweil's  Thoughts  read.  —  Another  Casket 
Appear -nee.  —  Robert  Houdin.  —  What  Ballbur  really  found. — 
Oil  on  Fire.  —  Pure  Invention.  —  Internal  Evidence.  — Scotcli  and 
French  Versions. —  Buchanan's  "Detection." — Cecil's  Certificate  209 

CFIAPTER  XIX. 

After  Carberry.  —  Maitland's  Description.  —  Pulpit  on  the  Queen.  — 
Lords  and  General  Assembly.  —  John  Knox. —  Candid  Opinion. 

—  No  Attempt  to  arrest  Bothwell. — Casket-letters  not  seen  in 
Scotland.  —  Absurd  Pretense  of  Acquaintance  with  jMoti^  es. — 
Mary  Stuart's  Partisans  sternly  rebuked.  —  Murray's  Conduct  to 
Mary.  —  Mr.  Froude's  Mild  Statement.  —  Murray  is  Pious. —  But 
loves  Mone}'.  —  French  Pension.  —  The  Brutal  Lindsay.  —  Three 
Sheets  of  Paper.  —  Spanish  Authority.  —  Accurate  Description.  — 

A  Late  Discovery.  —  De  Silva's  Letter.  —  Research  at  Simancas  ,  223 

CHAPTER  XX. 

Historian  touches  Exact  Spot. —  Complicity  of  Cecil  and  Elizabeth 
in  the  Murder.  —  Elizabeth's  Conduct  on  Arrest  of  3Iorton. — 
Blasphemous  Balfour.  —  His  Threatening  Letter.  —  The  (Queen's 
Jewels  — Murray  sells  his  Sister's  Pearls  — Lady  Murray. — 
Forced  to  surrender  Plunder. —  Maitlaiid,  Kirkaldy,  and  Morton. 

—  Picture  of  Morton.  —  Sells  Earl  of  Westmoreland  to  Elizabeth. 

—  Mr.  Froude's  Account  233 


viii 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


CHAP  TER  XXI. 

PAGB 

Cecil  the  Statesman.  —  Pro  Regina  Scotoruin.  —  Conference  at 
York. — Murray's  Device.  —  Asks  Promise  to  decide  in  his  Favor. 
—  Casket-l&tters.  —  Shows  Scotch  Copies  secretly.  —  Shows  Copies 
as  Ori<;iiials.  —  Mr.  Froude's  Invention. — Duke  of  Norfolk. — 
Mak  Guid  Watch.  —Two  Letters  disappear.  — Duke  of  Sussex.  — 
What  he  wrote.  —  The  Froude  Version.  —  Suppression  and  In- 
vention.—  Murray's  Companions  242 


CHAPTER  XXIL 

PART  FIRST. 

Scottish  Queen  demands  to  be  heard  in  Person.  —  Her  Commission- 
ers. —  Her  Declaration.  —  Elizabeth  Declines.  — Murray's  Accusa- 
tion.—  Mary's  Intent  to  murder  her  Child.  —  Elizabeth  doubts 
Strength  of  Murraj-'s  Case.  —  Mary's  Protest.  —  Cecil's  Trick. — 
Murray  proceeds  in  Absence  of  Mary's  Commissioners.  —  Book  of 
Articles. —  Unwilling  to  produce  Casket.  —  Produces  it. — Mor- 
ton certifies  it.  — Nature  of  the  Examination.  —  Protest  of  Mary's 
Commissioners.  —  Accomplished  Experts.  —  Cecil's  Minutes. — 
Letters  showed  "  b}"- Hap."  —  Keenest  Scrutiny.  —  English  Com- 
missioners hold  back.  —  Cecil  Furious.  — Mary  in  a  Distant  Prison. 
—  Her  Protest.  —  Accuses  Murray  and  the  Lords.  —  Demands 
Copies  of  the  Letters. — Repeated  Demand  for  Copies.  —  Eliza- 
beth. — Admirable  Actress      ...  ....  251 


PART  SECOND. 

Mary  again  demands  Copies. —  Offers  to  prove  Forgery  of  the  Let- 
ters.—  Elizabeth  promises  Copies. — Promises  again.  —  Again 
Admirable  Actress.  —  Cunning  Plot  to  persuade  Mary  to  abdi- 
cate.—Its  Details. —  How  it  succeeded. — Will  die  a  Queen  of 
Scotland.  —  Decision  of  Commissioners  on  Letters.  —  Casket 
Proofs  dismissed  as  Insufiicient.  —  Another  Demand  for  Copies. — 
Murray  returns  to  Scotland.  —  Takes  Box  and  £5,000.  —  Copies 
again  demanded.  —  No  Result.  —  At  Mary's  Request,  French  Am- 
bassador applies  for  Copies.  —  Again  promised.  —  But  not  fur- 
nished. —  Elizabeth  flies  in  a  Passion.  —  Reaction  iu  Favor  of 
Mary  260 


CHAPTER  XXIII. 

Mary's  Letter  to  Elizabeth.  —  Lady  Livingstone.  —  Scottish  Ladies 
offer  to  share  Mary's  Captivity.  —  Proposition  to  Mary. — To 
marry  Norfolk.  —  To  be  recognized  as  Heir  Apparent.  —  Mary's 
Innocence.  —  We  are  shown  what  passes  in  her  Mind.  —  Asks 
for  Bread  and  is  given  a  Stone.  —  Her  Prison  Life.  —  Mr.  Froude's 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

Broad  Charity.  —  Outbursts  of  Truest  Pathos.  —  False  in  one  false 
in  all  

CHAPTER  XXIV. 

Scotland  on  Murray's  Return,  —  Kirkaldy  of  Grange.  — Murray  be- 
trays Norfolk.  —  Rising  of  Nortbunib  rhxnd  and  Westmoreland.  — 
Murray  arrests  Northumberland.  —  Dares  not  sell  hiin  to  Eliza- 
beth.—  Indignation  of  the  People  — INIurray  shot  at  Linlith- 
gow.—  His  Eulogy.  —  Elizabeth's  Barbarity. — Another  Rising. 

—  Lady  Lennox.  —  Darnley's  Motiier  acknowledges  JMary's  Inno- 
cence. —  Her  Letter.  —  Mr.  Froude  does  not  see  it       .    •  .       .  277 

CHAPTER  XXV. 

Walsingham's  Plot.  —  Plots  to  release  Mary.  —  Plot  against  Eliza- 
beth.—  Str\pe  quoted.  —  Lord  Brougham's  A^iew.  —  Walsing- 
ham's Guilt  —  Paulet  and  Phillips.  —  Suggestive  Correspondence. 

—  Paulet  refuses  to  execute  Plot.  —  M.  Mignet's  Opinion.  —  De- 
ciphered Letters.  —  The  Work  done  in  Walsingham's  Office.  —  His 
Devices  and  Tools.  —  The  Queen's  Secretaries.  —  Babington  and 
Companions  executed.  —  Elizabeth's  Humanity.  — Testimony  of 
Nau  and  Curie.  —  Mary's  Papers.  —  What  is  Legal  Evidence?  — 
Counsel  for  Mary.  —  Leicester  suggests  Poison.  —  Mary  refuses  to 
appear.  —  Her  Objections.  —  Why  she  consented.  —  The  I'rial  at 
Fotheiingav. — Mr.ny  Learned  Counselors.  —  None  for  the  Queen. 

—  A  Pettifogger.  —  Mary  appeals. —  She  accuses  Wal.«ingham. 

—  Protests    her   Innocence.  —  Commission   adjourned.  —  Lord 
Brougham's  Statement  of  the  C  »se  283 

CHAPTER  XXVL  * 

Elizabeth's  Equanimit}-.  —  Her  Spirit  and  Moon.  —  Petition  of  Par- 
liament. —  Puckeri'ig.  —  Piety.  —  Oracular  Answer.  —  King  of 
France  sends  Ambassador.  —  How  he  was  thwarted. —  The  Stafford 
Trick.  —  Forgerv.  — Accomplished  Actress.  —  Elizabeth's  Men- 
dacity. —  Secretary  Davison.  —  The  Death-warrant.  — Amyas  Pau- 
let.— Walsingham's  Letter.  —  Paulet  refuses  to  Assassinate.  —  A 
Foul  Plot.  —  Elizabeth's  Conduct.  —  Mary  Stuart's  Letter  to  Eliz- 
abeth      ...  *  

CHAPTER  XXVII. 

The  Death  Sentence. —INIary's  Protest. — A  Popish  Testament. — 
Religious  Consolation.  —  Death  To-morrow.  —  Preparation.  —  The 
Night  before  the  Execution.  —  Humanity  and  Decency.  —  Andrew 
Melville.  —  The  C^reat  Hall.  —  The  Scaffold.  -  An  Apostolic  Man. 


PAGE 


295 


X 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

—  Into  Tliy  Hands.  —  The  Executioner  strikes  a  Blow.  —  A  Sec- 
ond. —  Death  301 

CHAPTER  XXVIir. 

Historian  and  Headsman.  —  The  Ethical  Principle.  —  Human  S^'m- 
pathy.  —  Labored  Impromptu.  —  The  Historian's  Charity.  — 
Where  is  th\'  Victory.  —  Mr.  Fronde's  Description  of  the  Execu- 
tion.—  Some  Remarks  upon  it       .......  306 

CHAPTER  XXIX. 
A  Theory  offered  31  :J 


APPENDIX. 

No.  1.  —  Extract  from  Martin,  "  Ilistoire  de  France,"  concerning 

Catherine  de  Medicis   315 

No.  2.  —  Extract  from  Sismondi,  "  Histoire  des  Fran^'ais,"  concern- 
ing Catherine  de  Medicis   31.5 

No.  3.  —  Notice  cf  M.  Migiiet's  "  Vie  de  Marie  Stuart  "  .  .  .  315 
No.  4.  —  Extract,  Martin,  "Histoire  de  France,"  as  to  Mary  Stuart's 

departure  from  France    31G 

No.  5.  —  Notice  of  Prince  Alexander  Labanoff's  ('olIecLion  of  Mar}' 

Stuart's  Letters   310 

No.  6.  —  Contemporary  Ballad  (15G8).    Extract      ....  317 

No.  7.  —  Copy  of  the  so-called  Ainslie  Bond   317 

No.  8. — Dr.  Johnson  on  the  Casket-letters.    Extracts     .       .       .  319 

No.  9.  —  Notice  of  Buchanan  and  his  "  Detection  "          .       .       .  320 

No  10.  —  List  of  Mary  Stuart's  Prisons  in  England         .       .       .  323 

No.  11.  —  Preface  to  Calendar  of  State  Papers  (Scotland).  Extract  323 
No.  12.  —  Pictures  of  Head  of  Mary  Stuart.    A  Description  by 

Hawthorne   324 

No.  13.  —  Bothwell's  Dying  Declaration    325 

No.  14.  —  Remarkable  Letter  of  Mary  Stuart  to  Queen  Elizabeth   .  326 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

MR.  FROUDE's    history  OF  ENGLAND.* 
"  Historian,  a  writer  of  facts  and  events."  — Dictionaky. 

If  we  accept  general  encomium  and  popular  demand  as 
criteria  of  excellence,  it  is  evident  that  Mr.  Froude  must 
be  the  first  historian  of  the  period.^  That,  with  a  vivid 
pen,  he  possesses  a  style  at  once  clear  and  graphic ;  that 
his  fullness  of  knowledge  and  skill  in  description  are  ex- 
ceptional ;  that  his  phrase  is  brilliant,  his  analysis  keen, 
and  that  with  ease  and  spirit,  grace  and  energy,  pictorial 
and  passionate  power  he  combines  consummate  art  in  im- 
agery and  diction,  we  have  been  told  so  often  and  by  so 
many  writers  that  it  would  seem  churlish  not  to  accord  him 
very  high  merit.  Then,  too,  he  is  very  much  in  earnest. 
Whatever  he  does  he  does  with  all  his  might,  and  in  his 
enthusiasm  often  fairly  carries  his  reader  along  with  him. 

But,  in  common  with  those  who  seek,  not  literary  excite- 
ment, but  the  facts  of  history,  we  go  at  once  to  the  vital 

1  History  of  England  from  the  Fall  of  Wohey  to  the  Death  of  Elizabeth. 
By  James  Anthony  Froude,  late  Fellow  of  Exeter  College,  Oxford.  12 
vols.    New  York:  Charles  Scribner  &  Co. 

2  The  use  of  the  editorial  pronoun  throughout  this  volume  is  the  result 
rather  of  accident  than  design.  The  four  magazine  articles  forming  the 
basis  of  the  Avork  appeared  editorially,  and  the  plural  form  was  inadver- 
tently continued  by  the  writer,  who  was  far  from  foreseeing  that  the  new. 
matter  would  in  quantity  so  much  exceed  the  original. 

1 


2 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


question,  Is  the  work  truthful  ?  Is  it  impartial  ?  If  not, 
its  author's  gifts  are  perverted,  his  attainments  abused,  and 
their  fruits,  so  bright  and  attractive  to  the  eye,  are  filled 
with  ashes. 

Impartial !  Difficult,  indeed,  is  the  attainment  of  that 
admirable  equilibrium  of  judgment  which  secures  perfect 
fairness  of  decision,  and  whose  essential  condition  prece- 
dent is  the  thorough  elimination  of  personal  preference  and 
party  prejudice.  And  here  is  the  serious  obstacle  in  writ- 
ing a  history  of  England ;  for  there  are  very  few  of  the 
great  historical  questions  of  the  sixteenth  century  that  have 
not  left  to  us  living  men  of  to-day  a  large  legacy  of  hopes, 
doubts,  and  23rejudices  —  nowhere  so  full  of  vitality  as  in 
England,  and  in  countries  of  English  tongue.  Not  that 
we  mean  to  limit  such  a  difficulty  to  one  nation  or  to  one 
period ;  for  it  is  not  certain  that  we  free  ourselves  from  the 
spell  of  prejudice  by  taking  refuge  in  a  more  remote  age. 
It  might  be  thought  that,  in  proportion  as  we  go  back  toward 
antiquity,  leaving  behind  us  to-day's  interests  and  passions, 
the  modern  historian's  impartiality  would  become  perfect. 
And  yet,  there  are  few  writers  of  whom  even  this  is  true. 
Reverting  historically  to  the  cradle  of  Christianity,  it  can- 
not fairly  be  asserted  of  Gibbon,  although  such  a  claim 
has  been  made  for  him. 

Nor  can  it  be  said  even  of  modern  historians  of  nations 
long  extinct,  in  common  with  which  one  might  suppose  the 
people  of  this  century  had  not  a  single  prejudice.  Take, 
for  instance,  all  the  English  historians  of  ancient  Greece, 
whose  works  (that  of  Grote  being  an  honorable  exception) 
are  so  many  political  pamphlets  arguing  for  oligarchy 
against  democracy,  elevating  Sparta  at  the  sacrifice  of 
Athens,  and  thrusting  at  a  modern  republic  through  the 
greatest  of  the  Hellenic  commonwealths.  If  Blerivale  is 
thought  to  treat  Roman  history  with  impartiality,  the  same 
cannot  be  said  of  many  modern  European  authors,  who, 
disguising  modern  politics  in  the  ancient  toga  and  helmet. 


• 

MR.  FROUDE's  history  OF  ENGLAND. 


3 


cannot  discuss  the  Roman  imperial  period  without  attack- 
ing the  Caisars  of  Paris,  St.  Petersburg,  and  Berlin. 

The  great  religious  questions  which  agitated  England  in 
the  sixteenth  century  are  not  dead.  They  still  live,  and 
for  the  Anglican,  the  Puritan,  and  the  Catholic  have  all  the 
deep  interest  of  a  family  legend.  It  might,  therefore,  be 
unreasonable  to  demand  from  the  historian  a  greater  degree 
of  dispassionate  inquiry  and  calm  treatment  of  subjects  that 
were  "  burning  questions  "  in  the  days  of  Henry  and  Eliz- 
abeth, than  we  find  in  Mitford  and  Gillies,  when  they  dis- 
cuss the  political  life  of  Athens  and  Lacedaemon.  So  far 
from  exacting  it,  we  shonld  be  disposed  to  be  most  liberal  in 
the  allowance  of  even  a  strongly  expressed  bias.  But  after 
granting  all  this,  and  even  more,  we  might  yet  not  unrea- 
sonably demand  a  system  which  is  not  a  paradox,  a  show  at 
least  of  fairness,  and  a  due  regard  for  the  proprieties  of 
historical  treatment. 

The  first  four  volumes  of  this  history  of  England  present 
the  narrative  of  half  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.,  a  prince 
"  chosen  by  Providence  to  conduct  the  Reformation,"  and 
abolish  the  iniquities  of  the  papal  system. 

The  Tudor  king  historically  known  of  all  men  before  the 
advent  of  Mr.  Fronde  with  his  modern  appliances  of  hero- 
worship  and  muscular  Christianity,  "  melted  so  completely  " 
in  our  new  historian's  hands  that  his  despotism,  persecu- 
tion, diplomatic  assassinations,  confiscations,  divorces,  legal- 
ized murders,  bloody  vagrancy  laws,  tyranny  over  con- 
science, and  the  blasphemous  assumption  of  spiritual 
supremacy  are  now  made  to  appear  as  the  praiseworthy 
measures  of  an  ascetic  monarch  striving  to  regenerate  his 
country  and  save  the  world. 

There  was  such  a  sublimity  of  impudence  in  a  paradox 
presented  with  so  much  apparently  sincere  vehemence  that 
most  readers  were  struck  with  dumb  astonishment.  A  fas- 
cinated few  declared  the  deodorized  infamy  perfectly  pure. 
Some,  pleased  with  pretty  writing,  were  delighted  with 


4: 


*  MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


poetic  passages  about  "  daisies,"  and  "  destiny,"  "  wild  spir- 
its," and  "  August  suns  "  that  "  .shone  in  autumn."  Many 
liked  its  novelty,  some  admired  its  daring,  and  some  there 
were  who  looked  upon  the  thing  simply  as  an  enormous 
joke.    All  these  formed  the  great  body  of  readers. 

Others  there  were,  though,  who  declined  to  accept  results 
which  were  violations  of  moralitj^,  and  verdicts  against  evi- 
dence obtained  by  systematic  vilification  of  some  of  the 
best,  and  the  elevation  of  some  of  the  worst  men  who  ever 
lived,  who  refused  to  join  in  a  blind  idolatry  incapable  of 
discerning  flaw  or  stain  in  the  unworthy  object  of  its  wor- 
ship ;  who  saw  Mr.  Fronde's  multifarious  ignorance  of 
matters  essential  for  a  historian  to -know,  and  his  total  want 
of  that  judicial  quality  of  mind,  without  which  no  one,  even 
though  he  were  possessed  of  all  knowledge,  can. ever  be  a 
historian.  They  resolved  that  such  a  system  as  this  w^as  a 
nuisance  to  be  abated,  and  that  the  new  and  unworthy 
man-worship  should  be  put  an  end  to.  Accordingly  the  idol 
was  smashed  ;  ^  and  in  the  process,  the  idol's  historian  left 
so  badly  damaged  as  to  render  his  future  availability  highly 
problematical. 

The  Scotch  treatment  was  of  instant  efficacy ;  for  we 
find  Mr.  Froude  coming  to  his  work  on  the  fifth  volume  in 
chastened  frame  of  mind  and  an  evidently  corrected  de- 
meanor. He  narrates  the  reigns  of  Mary  and  Edward  VI. 
with  style  and  tone  subdued,  and  in  the  measure  designated 
by  musicians  as  tem'po  moderato. 

With  the  seventh  volume  we  reach  the  accession  of  Queen 
Elizabeth.  We  opened  it  with  some  curiosity ;  for  it  was 
understood  from  Mr.  Froude,  at  the  outset  of  his  historical 
career,  that  he  intended  to  present  Elizabeth  as  "a  great 
nature  destined  to  remould  the  world,"  and  that  he  was' 
prepared  to  visit  with  something  like  astonishment  and 
unknown  pangs  all  who  should  dare  question  the  inmiac- 
ulate  purity  of  her  virtue.     It  is  not  improbable  that 

1  See  Edinburgh  Review  for  January  and  October,  1858. 


MR.  FROUDE'S  history  of  ENGLAND. 


5 


the  contemplation  of  the  strewn  and  broken  fragments  of 
the  paternal  idol  materially  modified  this  purpose  —  a 
change  ou*\vhich  our  historian  must  more  than  once  have 
fervently  congratulated  himself  as  he  gradually  penetrated 
deeper  into  the  treasures  of  the  State  paper  collections, 
and  stared  surprised  at  the  astounding  revelations  of  Si- 
man  cas. 

We  need  not  wonder  that  the  historian  altered  his  pro- 
gramme ;  and  that  instead  of  going  on  to  the  demise  of 
Elizabeth,  under  the  obligation  of  recording  the  horrors  of 
the  most  horrible  of  death-bed  scenes,  he  should  hasten  to 
close  his  work  with  the  wreck  of  the  Spanish  Armada. 

The  researches  of  our  American  historian.  Motley,  were 
terribly  damaging  to  Elizabeth ;  and  in  the  preparation  of 
his  seventh  volume,  Mr.  Froude  comes  upon  discoveries  so 
fatal  to  her  that  he  is  evidently  glad  to  drop  his  showy  nar- 
rative and  fill  his  pages  with  letters  of  the  Spanish  ambas- 
sador, who  gives  simple  but  wonderfully  vivid  pictures  of 
the  disedifying  scenes  then  too  common  at  the  English 
court. 

Future  historians  will  doubtless  take  heed  how  they  as- 
sociate with  the  reputation  of  the  sovereign  any  glory  they 
may  claim  for  England  under  Elizabeth,  remembering  that 
she  was  ready  to  marry  Leicester  notwithstanding  her 
strong  suspicion,  too  probably  assurance,  of  his  crime  (Amy 
Robsart's  murder),  and  that,  in  the  language  of  an  English 
critic,  "  She  was  thus  in  the  eye  of  Heaven,  which  judges 
by  the  intent  and  not  the  act,  nearer  than  Englishmen 
would  like  to  believe  to  the  guilt  of  an  adulteress  and  a 
murderess." 

But  Mr.  Froude  plucks  up  courage,  and,  true  to  his  first 
love,  while  appearing  to  handle  Elizabeth  with  cruel  con- 
demnation, treats  her  with  real  kindness. 

We  have  all  heard  of  Alcibiades  and  his  dog,  and  of 
what  befell  that  animal.  Our  historian  assumes  an  air  of 
stern  severity  for  those  faults  of  Elizabeth  for  which  con- 


6 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


cealnient  is  out  of  the  question  —  her  mean  parsimony,  her 
insincerity,  her  cruelty,  her  matchless  mendacity  ^  —  while 
industriously  concealing  or  artistically  draping  her  more 
repulsive  offenses. 

But  we  do  not  propose  to  treat  the  work  as  a  whole.  A 
chorus  of  repudiation  from  the  most  opposite  schools  of 
criticism  has  effectually  covered  the  attempted  apotheosis  of 
a  bad  man  with  ridicule  and  contempt.  As  to  Elizabeth, 
the  less  said  the  better,  if  we  are  friendly  to  her  memory. 

In  his  earlier  volumes  his  very  defective  knowledge  of 
all  history  before  the  sixteenth  century  led  him  into  the 
most  grotesque  blunders  —  errors  in  general  and  in  details, 
in  geography,  jurisprudence,  titles,  offices,  and  military  af- 
fairs. And  so  far  from  meriting  the  compliment  paid  him, 
of  accurate  knowledge  of  the  tenets  and  peculiar  observ- 
ances of  the  leading  religious  sects,  acquired  in  the  "  course 
of  his  devious  theological  career,"  it  is  precisely  in  such 
matters  that  he  seriously  fails  in  accuracy. 

Falling  far  short  of  a  thorough  grasp  of  his  material, 
the  writer  in  question  totally  fails  to  make  it  up  into  an 
interesting  consecutive  narrative.  He  lacks,  too,  the  all- 
important  power  of  generalization,  and,  as  has  been  aptly 
remarked,  handles  a  microscope  skillfully,  but  is  apparently 
unable  to  see  through  a  telescope.  Heroic  and  muscular 
withal,  it  is  not  surprising  that  his  over-haste  to  produce 
some  startling  result  came  near  wrecking  him  in  the  morn- 
ing of  his  career. 

While  his  work  was  in  course  of  publication,  our  histo- 
rian wrote  from  Simancas,  a  sensational  article  for  "  Fra- 
ser's  Magazine,"  in  which  he  announced  some  astounding 

1  "  Through  her  whole  reign,"  says  Lord  Brougham,  "  she  was  a  dis- 
sembler, a  pretender,  a  hypocrite.  Whether  in  steering  her  crooked  way 
between  rival  sects,  or  in  accommodating  herself  to  conflicting  factions,  or 
in  pursuing  the  course  she  had  resolved  to  follow  amidst  the  various  opin- 
ions of  the  people,  she  ever  displayed  a  degree  of  cunning  and  faithlessness 
which  it  is  impossible  to  contemplate  without  disgust." —  Historical  Sketches 
of  Statesmen^  by  Henry,  Lord  Brougham,  vol.  i.  383,  London  edit. 


MR.  FROUDE'S  history  OF  ENGLAND. 


7 


historical  discoveries,  which  but  a  few  weeks  later  he  was 
only  too  ghid  to  recall.  The  trouble  was  that  he  had 
totally  misunderstood  the  Spanish  documents  on  which  his 
discovery  was  grounded. 

Along  with  his  apparent  incapacity  for  impartial  judg- 
ment, there  is  an  evident  inability  in  Mr.  Froude  to  dis- 
tinguish the  relative  value  of  different  state  papers  ;  and 
the  most  striking  proof  that  he  is  still  in  his  apprenticeship 
as  a  writer  of  history,  is  his  indiscriminate  acceptance  of 
written  authorities  of  a  certain  class.  Historical  results 
long  since  settled  by  the  unanimous  testimony  of  Camden, 
Carte,  and  Lingard,  the  three  great  English  historians  of 
the  seventeenth,  eighteenth,  and  nineteenth  centuries  re- 
spectively, are  thrust  aside  by  him  and  made  to  give  way 
to  some  MS.  of  doubtful  value  or  questionable  authenticity. 
"When  he  finds  a  paper  three  hundred  years  old,  he  gives 
it  speech  and  sets  it  up  as  an  oracle.  Nor  can  the  simile 
be  arrested  here  ;  for,  treating  his  oracle  with  the  tyrannic 
familiarity  of  a  heathen  priest,  the  paper  Mumbo  Jumbo 
must  speak  as  ordered,  or  else  be  sadly  cuffed. 

It  is  a  serious  error  to  imagine  that  when  one  has  found 
a  mass  of  original  historical  papers,  his  labor  of  investiga- 
tion is  ended,  and  he  has  but  to  transcribe,  to  put  his  per- 
sonages on  the  stage,  let  them  act  and  declaim  as  these, 
writings  relate,  and  thus  place  before  the  reader  the  truth- 
ful portrait  of  by-gone  times.  Far  from  it.  It  is  at  this 
point  that  the  historian's  work  really  begins.  He  must 
ascertain  by  comparison,  by  sifting  of  evidence,  by  many 
precautions,  who  lies  and  who  may  be  believed. 

But  very  few  of  these  difficulties  have  any  terrors  for 
our  English  historian.  Commencincf  his  investisfation  with 
his  theory  perfected,  it  is  with  him  a  mere  choice  of  papers. 
Swifl  is  the  fate  of  facts  not  suiting  his  theory.  So  much 
the  worse  for  them,  if  they  are  not  what  he  would  have 
them  to  be  ;■  they  are  cast  forth  into  outer  darkness. 

Our  author  has  fine  perceptive  and  imaginative  faculties 


8 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


—  admirable  gifts  for  literature,  but  not  for  history.  Desir- 
able, if  history  depended  on  fiction,  not  on  fact.  Precious, 
if  historic  truth  were  subjective.  Above  all  price,  where 
the  literary  artist  has  the  privilege  of  evolving  from  the 
inner  depths  of  his  own  consciousness  the  virtues  or  the 
vices  wherewith  it  suits  him  to  endow  his  characters.  But 
alas  !  otherwise  utterly  fatal,  because  historic  truth  is  emi- 
nently objective. 

It  has  been  well  said  that  to  be  a  good  historical  student, 
a  man  should  not  find  it  in  him  to  desire  that  any  histor- 
ical fact  should  be  otherwise  than  it  is.  Now,  we  cannot 
consent  to  a  lower  standard  in  logic  and  morality  for  the 
historian  than  for  the  student ;  and  thus  testing  our  author, 
it  is  not  pleasant  to  contemplate  his  sentence  when  judged 
by  stern  votaries  o"  truth.  For  we  have  a  well-grounded 
belief  that  not  only  is  it  possible  for  Mr.  Froude  to  desire  a 
historical  fact  to  be  otherwise  than  it  is,  but  that  he  is  capa- 
ble of  carrying  that  desire  into  effect.  It  is  idle  to  talk 
of  the  judicial  quality  of  the  historian  who  scarcely  puts 
on  a  semblance  of  impartiality. 

In  matters  of  state,  Mr.  Froude  is  a  pamphleteer;  in 
personal  questions,  he  is  an  advocate.  He  holds  a  brief 
for  Henry.  He  holds  a  brief  against  Mary  Stuart.  He 
'  is  the  most  effective  of  advocates,  for  he  fairly  throws 
himself  into  his  case.  He  is  the  declared  friend  or  the 
open  enemy  of  all  the  personages  in  his  history.  Their 
failure  and  their  success  affect  his  spirits  and  his  style. 
He  rejoices  with  them  or  weeps  with  them.  There  are 
some  whose  misfortunes  uniformly  make  him  sad.  There 
are  others  over  whose  calamities  he  becomes  radiant.  He 
has  no  standard  of  justice,  no  ethical  principle  which  esti- 
mates actions  as  they  are  in  themselves,  and  not  in  the 
light  of  personal  like  or  dislike  of  the  actors. 

It  must  be  admitted,  nevertheless,  that  Mr.  Froude 
makes  up  an  attractive-looking  page.  Foot-notes  and 
citations  in  quantity,  imposing  capitals  and  inverted  com- 


MR.  FROUDE'S  history  OF  ENGLAND.  9 


mas,  all  combine  to  give  it  a  certain  typographical  vivac- 
ity. Great  as  are  his  rhetorical  resources,  he  does  not 
despise  the  devices  of  print. 

Quotation-marks  are  usually  supposed  to  convey  to  the 
reader  the  conventional  assurance  that  they  include  the 
precise  words  of  the  text.  But  his  system  is  not  so  com- 
monplace. He  inserts  therein  language  of  his  own,  and 
in  all  these  cases  his  use  of  authorities  is  not  only  danger- 
ous but  deceptive.  He  has  a  way  of  placing  some  of  the 
actual  words  of  a  document  in  his  narrative  in  such  a  man- 
ner as  totally  to  pervert  their  sense.  The  historian  who 
truthfully  condenses  a  page  into  a  paragraph  saves  labor 
for  the  reader ;  but  Mr.  Froude  has  a  trick  of  giving  long 
passages  in  quotation-marks  without  sign  of  alteration  or 
omission,  which  we  may  or  may  not  discover  from  a  note  to 
be  "  abridged." 

Other  objectionable  manipulations  of  our  author  are  the 
joining  together  of  two  distinct  passages  of  a  document, 
thus  entirely  changing  their  original  sense ;  the  connection 
of  two  phrases  from  two  different  authorities  presenting 
them  as  one ;  and  the  tacking  of  irresponsible  or  anony- 
mous authorities  to  one  that  is  responsible,  concealing  the 
first,  and  avowing-  the  last. 

Of  the  gravity  of  these  charges  we  are  perfectly  well 
aware,  and  we  propose  to  make  them  good. 

Then  his  texts,  and  the  rapid  boldness  with  which  he 
disposes  of  them ;  cutting,  trimming,  clipping,  provided 
only  that  an  animated  dialogue  or  picturesque  effect  be 
produced,  causing  the  reader  to  exclaim,  "  How  beautifully 
Mr.  Froude  writes ! "  "  What  a  painter ! "  "  His  book  is  as 
interesting  as  a  novel ! "  And  so  it  is ;  for  the  excellent 
reason  that  it  is  written  precisely  as  novels  are  written,  and 
mainly  depends  for  its  interest  upon  the  study  of  motives. 
A  superior  novelist  brings  characters  before  us  in  startling 
naturalness — his  treatment,  of  course,  being  subjective,  not 
objective ;  arbitrary,  not  historical.    Mr.  Froude,  with  his 


10. 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


great  skill  in  depicting  individual  character  and  particular 
events,  follows  the  romancer's  method,  and  may  be  said  to 
be  the  originator  of  what  we  may  designate  as  the  "  psycho- 
logical school "  of  history.  This  power  gives  him  an  im- 
mense advantage  over  all  other  historians. 

While  they  are  burning  the  midnight  lamp  in  the  en- 
deavor to  detect  the  springs  of  action  by  the  study  of  every- 
thing that  can  throw  light  upon  the  action  itself,  he  has 
only  to  peer  through  the  window  which,  like  unto  other 
novelists,  he  has  constructed  in  the  bosom  of  every  one  of 
his  characters,  to  show  us  their  most  secret  thoughts  and 
aspirations.  One  may  open  any  of  his  volumes  at  random 
and  find  an  exemplification  of  what  is  here  stated.  As  for 
instance :  — 

"  It  was  not  thus  that  Mary  Stuart  had  hoped  to  meet  her 
brother.  His  head  sent  home  fi^om  the  Border,  or  himself  brought 
back  a  living  prisoner,  with  the  dungeon,  the  scaffold,  and  the 
bloody  axe  —  these  were  the  images  which  a  few  weeks  or  days 
before  she  had  associated  with  the  next  appearance  of  her 
father's  son.  Her  feelings  had  undergone  no  change ;  she  hated 
him  with  the  hate  of  hell ;  but  the  more  deep-set  passion  paled 
for  the  moment  before  a  thirst  for  revenge."    (viii.  267.) 

^  Here  are  depicted'  the  feverish  workings  of  a  wicked 
heart ;  its  hopes,  fears,  passions  —  nay,  even  the  very  images 
that  float  before  the  mind's  eye.  And  we  are  asked  to  ac- 
cept for  history  —  ascertained  fact  —  such  fancy  sketches  of 
secret  mental  turmoil  as  this. 

Our  historian  takes  unprecedented  liberties  with  texts 
and  citations.  Now  he  totally  ignores  what  a  given  person 
says  on  an  important  occasion.  Now  he  puts  a  speech  of 
his  own  into  the  mouth  of  the  same  character.  Passages 
cited  from  certain  documents  cannot  be  found  there,  and 
other  documents  referred  to  have  no  existence.  In  a 
word,  Mr.  Froude  trifles  with  his  readers  and  plays  with 
his  authorities,  as  some  people  play  with  cards. 


CHAPTER  II. 


"  I  might  say  that  I  know  more  about  the  history  of  the  sixteenth 
century  than  I  know  about  anything  else."  —  James  Anthony  Feouue 
in  Short  Studies  on  Great  Subjects,  p.  40. 

Reference  has  been  made  to  the  defective  knowledge 
manifested  by  Mr.  Froude  of  general  history  before  the 
sixteenth  century ;  and  it  might  be  added  that  in  the  con- 
temporary history  of  foreign  countries  he  is  either  deplora- 
bly weak  or  makes  strange  concealment  of  his  knowledge. 
But  our  surprise  increases  when  we  find  him  quite  as  defi- 
cient in  the  history  of  his  own  country.  This  is  a  matter 
easily  tested,  and  the  test  may  be  specially  confined  to  the 
period  of  Elizabeth,  with  which,  according  to  his  late  ap- 
peal through  the  "Pall  Mall  Gazette,"  Mr.  Froude  has 
labored  so  industriously  and  is  so  entirely  familiar. 

And  the  test  proposed  reveals  his  total  unconsciousness 
of  the  existence  of  one  of  the  most  peculiar  laws  of  Eng- 
land then  in  force.  A  clever  British  reviewer,  in  express- 
ing his  surprise  at  our  historian's  multifarious  ignorance 
concerning  the  civil  and  criminal  jurisprudence  of  his 
country,  says  that  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  Mr.  Froude 
has  ever  seen  the  face  of  an  English  justice  ;  and  the  re- 
proach is  well  merited.  Nevertheless  we  do  not  look  for 
the  accuracy  of  a  Lingard,  or  even  of  a  Macaulay,  in  an 
imaginative  writer  like  Mr.  Froude,  and  might  excuse  nu- 
merous slips  and  blunders  as  to  law  pleadings  and  the 
forms  of  criminal  trials  —  nay,  even  as  to  musty  old  stat- 
utes and  conflicting  legislative  enactments  (as,  for  instance, 
when  he  puts  on  an  air  of  critical  severity  (ix.  38)  as  to  the 
allowance  of  a  delay  of  fifteen  days  in  Bothwell's  trial. 


12 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


claiming,  in  his  defective  knowledge  of  the  Scotch  law, 
that  it  should  have  been  forty  days)  ;  but  when  we  find  his 
mind  a  total  blank  as  to  the  very  existence  of  one  of  the 
most  peculiar  and  salient  features  of  English  law,  we  must 
insist  that  such  ignorance  in  one  who  sets  up  for  an  Eng- 
lish historian  is,  to  say  the  least,  very  remarkable. 

Here  is  the  case.  During  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  one 
Thomas  Cobham,  like  unto  many  other  good  English  Prot- 
estants, was,  Mr.  Froude  informs  us,  "  roving  the  seas,  half 
pirate,  half  knight-errant  of  the  Reformation,  doing  battle 
on  his  own  account  with  the  enemies  of  the  truth,  wherever 
the  service  of  God  was  likely  to  be  repaid  with  plunder." 
(viii.  459.)  He  took  a  Spanish  vessel  (England  and  Spain 
being  at  peace),  with  a  cargo  valued  at  eighty  thousand 
ducats,  killing  many  on  board.  After  all  resistance  had 
ceased,  he  "  sewed  up  the  captain  and  the  survivors  of  the 
crew  in  their  own  sails,  and  flung  them  overboard."  Even  in 
England  this  performance  of  Cobham  was  looked  upon  as 
somewhat  rough  and  slightly  irregular,  and  at  the  indignant 
requisition  of  Spain,  he  was  tried  in  London  for  piracy. 
De  Silva,  the  Spanish  ambassador  at  the  court  of  Elizabeth, 
wrote  home  an  account  of  the  trial.  AVe  now  quote  Mr. 
Froude,*who  being  —  as  a  learned  English  historian  should 
be — perfectly  familiar  with  the  legal  institutions  of  his 
country,  and  knowing  full  well  that  the  punishment  de- 
scribed by  De  Silva  was  never  inflicted  in  England,  is  nat- 
urally shocked  at  the  ignorance  of  this  foreigner,  and  thus 
presents  and  comments  upon  his  letter :  — 

"  Thomas  Cobham,"  wrote  De  Silva,  "  being  asked  at  the  trial, 
according  to  the  usual  form  in  England,  if  he  had  anything  to 
say  in  arrest  of  judgment,  and  answering  nothing,  was  condemned 
to  be  taken  to  the  Tower,  to  be  stripped  naked  to  the  skin,  and 
then  to  be  placed  with  his  shoulders  resting  on  a  sharp  stone,  his 
legs  and  arms  extended,  and  on  his  stomach  a  gun,  too  heavy 
for  him  to  bear,  yet  not  large  enough  immediately  to  crush  him. 
There  he  is  to  be  left  till  he  die.    They  will  give  him  a  few  grains 


MR.  FROUDE'S  history  OF  ENGLAND. 


13 


of  corn  to  eat,  and  for  drink  the  foulest  water  in  tlie  Tower."  — 
(viii.  449,  1st  London  ed.) 

It  would  not  be  easy  to  state  the  case  in  fewer  words 
and  more  accurately  than  De  Silva  here  puts  it.  Cobham 
was  called  upon  to  answer  in  the  usual  form,  and  "  answer- 
ing nothing  "  or  "  standing  mute,"  "  was  condemned,"  etc. 
A  definition  of  the  offense  and  a  description  of  its  punish- 
ment by  the  well-known  peine  forte  et  dure  were  thus  clearly 
presented ;  but  even  then  our  historian  fails  to  recognize 
an  offense  and  its  penalty,  perfectly  familiar  to  any  student 
who  has  ever  read  Blackstone  or  Bailey's  Law  Dictionary, 
and  makes  this  astounding  comment  on  De  Silva's  letter  :  — 

"  Had  any  such  sentence  been  pronounced,  it  toould  not  have  been 
left  to  he  discovered  in  the  letter  of  a  stranger  ;  the  ambassador  may 
perhaps,  in  this  instance,  have  been  purposely  deceived,  and  his 
demand  for  justice  satisfied  by  a  fiction  of  imaginary  horror." — 
(viii.  449,  1st  London  ed.) 

This  unfortunate  performance  was  received  by  critical 
readers  with  mirthful  surprise,  and  as  a  consequence,  al- 
though the  passages  we  have  cited  may  be  found,  as  we 
have  indicated,  in  the  first  London,  they  need  not  be  looked 
for  in  later  editions.  On  the  contrary,  we  now  learn  from 
Mr.  Froude  (Scribner  edition  of  1870,  viii.  461),  that 
"  Cobham  refused  to  plead  to  his  indictment,  and  the  dread- 
ful sentence  was  passed  upon  him  of  the  peine  forte  et 
dure  ;  "  and  thereto  is  appended  an  erudite  note  for  the  in- 
struction of  persons  supposed  to  be  unacquainted  with 
English  law,  explaining  the  matter,  and  citing  Blackstone, 
"  book  iv.  chap.  25." 

But,  possibly  it  may  be  suggested,  this  dreadful  punish- 
ment was  rarely  inflicted,  and  that  fact  may  serve  to  excuse 
the  gross  blunder  ?  Not  at  all.  Other  instances  of  the 
peine  forte  et  dure  occurred  in  this  very  reign  of  Elizabeth. 
Here  is  one  which  almost  inspires  us  with  a  feeling  of  com- 
passion for  the  much  denounced  Spanish  Inquisition. 


14 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


Margaret  Middleton,  the  wife  of  one  Clitheroe,  a  rich 
citizen  of  York,  was  prosecuted  for  having  harbored  a 
priest  in  quality  of  a  schoohnaster.  At  the  bar  (March 
25th,  1586)  she  refused  to  plead  guilty,  because  she  knew 
that  no  sufficient  proof  could  be  brought  against  her ;  and 
she  would  not  plead  "  not  guilty,"  because  she  considered 
such  a  plea  equivalent  to  a  falsehood.  The  peine  forte  et 
dure  was  immediately  ordered. 

"  After  she  had  prayed,  Fawcet,  the  sheriff',  commanded  them 
to  put  off"  her  apparel ;  when  she,  with  the  four  women,  requested 
him  on  their  knees  that,  for  the  honor  of  womanhood,  this  might 
be  dispensed  with.  But  they  would  not  grant  it.  Then  she  re- 
quested them  that  the  women  might  unapparel  her,  and  that  they 
would  turn  their  faces  from  her  during  that  time. 

"  The  women  took  off  her  clothes,  and  put  upon  her  the  long 
linen  habit.  Then  very  quickly  she  laid  her  down  upon  the 
ground,  her  face  covered  with  a  handkerchief,  and  most  part  of 
her  body  with  the  habit.  The  door  was  laid  upon  her;  her 
hands  she  joined  toward  her  face.  Then  the  sheriff"  said,  '  Naie, 
ye  must  have  your  hands  bound.'  Then  two  sergeants  parted 
her  hands,  and  bound  them  to  two  posts.  After  this  they  laid 
weight  upon  her,  which,  when  she  first  felt  she  said,  '  Jesu,  Jesu, 
Jesu,  have  mercye  upon  mee,'  which  were  the  last  words  she  was 
heard  to  speake.  She  was  in  dying  about  one  quarter  of  an 
hour.  A  sharp  stone,  as  much  as  a  man's  fist,  had  been  put 
under  her  back ;  upon  her  was  laied  to  the  quantitie  of  seven  or 
eight  hundred  weight,  which,  breaking  her  ribbs  caused  them  to 
burst  forth  of  the  skinne." 

This  dreadful  incident  naturally  brings  us  to  the  consid- 
eration of  a  kindred  subject  most  singularly  treated  in  Mr. 
Fronde's  pages.  If  the  constant  use  of  torture  and  the 
rack  had  been  a  feature  of  Mary  Stuart's  reign,  and  not,  as 
it  was,  the  constant  and  favorite  expedient  of  Elizabeth  and 
Cecil,^  what  bursts  of  indignant  eloquence  should  we  not 
have  been  favored  with  by  our  historian,  and  what  admira- 

1  "  The  rack  seldom  stood  idle  in  the  Tower  for  all  the  latter  part  of 
Elizabeth's  reign."  —  Hallam,  Constitutional  History  of  England. 


MR.  FROUDE'S  history  OF  ENGLAND. 


15 


ble  illustrations  would  it  not  have  furnished  him  as  to  the 
brutalizing  tendencies  of  Catholicity  and  the  superior  hu- 
manity and  enlightenment  of  Protestantism  ?  Nothing  so 
clearly  shows  the  government  of  Elizabeth  to  have  been  a 
despotism  as  her  constant  employment  of  torture.  Every 
time  she  or  Cecil  sent  a  prisoner  to  the  rack  —  and  they  sent 
hundreds  —  they  trampled  the  laws  of  England  under  foot. 
These  laws,  it  is  true,  sometimes  authorized  painful  ordeals 
and  severe  punishments,  but  the  rack  never.  Torture  was 
never  legally  authorized  in  England.  But  the  trickling 
blood,  the  agonized  cries,  the  crackling  bones,  the  "  strained 
limbs  and  quivering  muscles"  (Froude  vi.  294)  of  mar- 
tyred Catholics  make  these  Tudor  practices  lovely  in  Mr. 
Fronde's  eyes,  and  he  philosophically  remarks,  "  The 
method  of  inquiry,  however  inconsonant  with  modern  con- 
ceptions of  justice,  was  adapted  excellently  for  the  outroot- 
ing  of  the  truth."    (x.  293.) 

We  could  hardly  have  believed  that  any  man  of  modern 
enlightenment  could  possibly  entertain  such  opinions.  They 
are  simply  amazing.  Torture  is  not  only  "inconsonant" 
with  modern  conceptions  of  justice,  but  also  with  ancient ; 
for  it  is  condemned  even  by  the  sages  of  the  code  which 
authorized  it.  Mr.  Froude  might  have  learned  something 
of  this  matter  from  the  Digests  (liber  xviii.  tit.  18).  The 
passage  is  too  long  to  cite,  but  one  sentence  alone  tells  us 
in  a  few  words  of  the  fallacy,  danger,  and  deception  of  the 
use  of  torture  :  "  Etenim  res  est  fragilis  et  periculosa,  et 
quae  veritatem  fall  at." 

So  much  for  ancient  opinion.  And  modern  justice  has 
rejected  the  horrible  thing,  not  only  on  the  ground  of 
morality,  but  because  it  has  been  demonstrated  to  be  a 
promoter  of  perjury  and  the  worst  possible  means  of  "  out- 
rooting  "  the  truth.  The  true  history  of  the  Throckmorton 
affiiir,  so  sadly  travestied  by  our  historian  in  his  twelfth 
volume,  is  a  case  in  point. 

To  return :  the  case  of  Cobham  is  not  the  only  one  in 


16 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


which  Mr.  Fronde  has  prudently  profited  by  criticism,  and 
hastened,  in  a  new  edition  of  his  work,  to  repair  his  error. 
Even  slight  comparison  of  his  first  with  his  last  edition  will 
show  him  to  be  under  deep  obligations  to  his  critics,  and  it 
would  be  wise  in  him  to  seek  increase  of  his  debt  of  grati- 
tude by  fresh  corrections. 

Under  a  thin  veil  of  sentimental  tinsel,  fringed  with 
rhetorical  shreds  about  "  pleasant  mountain  breezes  "  anc( 
"  blue  skies  smiling  cheerily,"  our  historian  always  has  his 
own  little  device  ;  and,  by  innuendo  and  by  every  artifice 
of  rhetorical  exaggeration,  never  loses  the  opportunity  of 
a  deadly  thrust  at  those  he  dislikes.  It  is  unfortunate  for 
any  claim  that  might  be  made  in  favor  of  his  impartiality 
that  in  his  pages  to  hold  certain  religious  tenets  is  to  insure 
his  enmity.  With  more  or  less  vehemence  of  language,  in 
stronger  or  milder  tone  of  condemnation,  this  is  the  one 
thing  that  surely  brings  out  this  writer's  best  efforts  in  de- 
traction, from  muttered  insinuation  to  the  joyous  exuber- 
ance of  a  jubilant  measure  in  which,  occasionally  forgetting 
himself,  he,  like  Hugh  in  "  Barnaby  Rudge,"  astounds  his 
auditory  with  an  extemporaneous  No-Popery  dance. 

The  insidious  suggestion  is  found  in  such  cases  as  those 
of  Sir  Thomas  More  and  Katherine  of  Aragon.  Henry's 
outrages  on  this  noble  woman,  we  are  assured,  were  either 
caused  by  herself  or  were  the  result  of  that  omnipresent 
"  inevitable  "  which,  according  to  our  historian,  produced 
all  the  wickedness  of  Henry's  reign.  "  Her  injuries,  inev- 
itable as  they  were,  and  forced  u^Don  her  in  great  measure 
by  her  own  willfulness."  ^  (i.  445.)  For  Reginald  Pole, 
there  is  labored  effort  of  invidious  depreciation  ;  for  Black 

1  In  this  connection,  we  must  do  INIr.  Froude  the  justice  to  mention  that 
he  does  not  entirely  approve  Henry's  conduct  in  Iveeping  Anne  Boleyn 
under  the  same  roof  with  his  lawful  wife,  and  finds  in  it  a  "  singular  blem- 
ish." Strictly  speaking,  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  performance  was  not 
"  nice."  And  yet,  in  the  face  of  this  utterly  indefensible  abomination,  our 
historian,  sensible  to  the  last,  seeks  to  imagine  circumstances  which  might 
"  perhaps  jmrtially  palliate  iV    The  passage  is  characteristic,    (i.  313.) 


Mn.  froude's  history  of  England. 


17 


and  Cardinal  Beaton,  the  reassertion  of  exploded  calum- 
nies to  palliate  their  assassination  ;  and  for  Mary  Stuart, 
a  scream  of  hatred  with  which  he  accompanies  her  from 
her  mother's  nursing  arms  to  the  scaffold  of  Fotheringay, 
where  grinning  with  exultant  delight  at  the  scars  of  dis-  * 
ease  and  the  contortions  of  death,  the  scream  deepens  into 
a  savage  scalp-howl  worthy  of  a  Camanche  on  his  bloodiest 
war-path. 

An  early  occasion  is  seized  (i.  53)  to  damn  with  faint 
praise  the  noblest  character  of  his  age,  by  classifying  Sir 
Thomas  More  with  men  not  worthy  to  mend  the  great 
chancellor's  pens ;  and  with  quite  an  air  of  impartiality, 
Mr.  Froude  talks  of  "  the  high  accomplishments  of  More 
and  Sir  T.  Elliott,  of  Wyatt  and  Cromwell." 

Indirection  and  insinuation  are  effective  weapons  never 
out  of  this  historian's  hands.  In  an  allusion  or  remark, 
dropped  apparently  in  the  most  careless  manner,  he  will 
lay  the  foundation  of  a  system  of  attack  one  or  two  vol- 
umes off  and  many  years  in  historical  advance  of  his  ob- 
jective point.  At  page  272,  vol.  i.,  we  are  told  of  "  three 
years  later,  when  the  stake  recommenced  its  hateful  activity 
under  the  auspices  of  Sir  Thomas  More's  fanaticism." 
Thus  the  way  is  prepared  for  the  accusation  of  personal 
cruelty,  which  Mr.  Froude  strives,  in  vol.  ii.,  to  lay  at 
More's  door.  More's  greatness  and  beautiful  elevation  of 
character  are  evidently  unpleasant  subjects  for  our  his- 
torian, and  in  speaking  of  him  as  one  "  whose  life  was  of 
blameless  purity  "  (ii.  79),  he  grudgingly  yields  him  a  credit 
which  he  seeks  to  sweep  away  in  the  charge  of  religious 
persecution,  specifying  four  particular  cases  :  those  of  Phil- 
ipps,  Field,  Bilney,  and  Bainham. 

These  cases  have  been  taken  up  seriatim  by  a  competent 
critic  (the  reader  curious  to  see  them  may  consult  the  ap- 
pendix to  the  October  Number  "Edinburgh  Review"  1858), 
who  demonstrates  that  Mr.  Froude's  pretended  authorities 
do  7iot  tell  the  story  he  undertakes  to  put  in  their  mouth, 


18 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


and  that  he  is  guilty  of  such  perversions  as  are  exceedingly 
damaging  to  his  reputation. 

Soon  follows  a  justification  of  Henry's  judicial  murders 
of  More  and  Fisher,  for  the  crime  of  holding  the  very  doc- 
trine which  Henry  himself,  in  his  work  against  Luther,  had 
but  lately  asserted.  A  pretense  is  made  to  give  an  account 
of  More's  trial,  but  its  great  feature,  which  was  More's 
crushing  defense,  is  totally  omitted.  Characteristic  of  the 
new  historical  school  is  Mr.  Froude's  reason  why  More  and 
Fisher  (the  latter,  as  Mr.  Fronde  informs  us,  "  sinking 
into  the  grave  with  age  and  sickness,"  —  ii.  362),  innocent 
of  all  crime,  were  righteously  sent  to  the  scaffold.  It  was, 
you  see,  most  untranscendental  reader,  because  "  the  voices 
crying  underneath  the  altar  had  been  heard  upon  the 
throne  of  the  Most  High,  and  woe  to  the  generation  of 
which  the  dark  account  had  been  demanded."    (ii.  377.) 

And  if  any  one  is  so  unreasonable  as  to  inquire  into  the 
nature  of  the  connection  in  this  unpleasant  business  be- 
tween the  "  Most  High  "  and  Henry  YHL,  —  two  princes 
of  very  nearly  equal  merit  in  Mr.  Froude's  estimation,  —  he 
will  find  himself  summarily  warned  off  the  premises  by  the 
historian  thus  :  "  History  will  rather  dwell  upon  the  inci- 
dents of  the  execution,  than  attempt  a  sentence  upon  those 
who  willed  it  should  be  so.  It  was  at  once  most  piteous 
and  most  inevitable."    (ii.  376.) 

And  so,  inquisitive  reader,  enjoy  as  well  as  you  may  the 
chopping  off  of  heads,  but  do  not  ask  impertinent  ques- 
tions as  to  "  those  who  willed  it  should  be  so."  Indeed, 
such  inquiry  would  seem  to  be  useless,  for,  as  we  read 
further,  we  ascertain  from  Mr.  Froude's  pages  that  nobody 
in  particular  is  to  blame. 

We  all  know  that  the  mind  of  the  historian  should  be 
not  only  passionless  but  colorless.  But  Mr.  Froude  is  so 
frankly  a  partisan,  that  in  his  work  color  is  strong  and  pas- 
sion deep.  And  this  is  not  the  result  of  a  constitutional 
infirmity  which  makes  him  unconsciously  and  uniformly 


MR.  FROUDE'S  history  OF  ENGLAND. 


19 


either  an  optimist  or  a  pessimist.  Not  at  all.  lie  is  one 
or  the  other  at  will,  and  as  his  prejudice  rules.  With  him 
certain  historical  characters  must  be  always  wrong,  always 
bad ;  while  others  remain  always  right  and  always  good. 
Where  historical  facts  totally  fail,  or  are  too  stubborn  for 
use,  unlimited  store  of  rhetoric  and  imagination  make  good 
the  void.  Compare  the  historic  treatment  of  Henry  with 
that  of  Mary  Stuart.  In  the  case  of  the  Tudor  king,  his 
friends  and  parasites  are  profusely  quoted,  and  at  every  few 
pages  he  is  allowed  to  speak  for  himself.  Allowed  ?  Why, 
when  he  opens  his  mouth,  there  is  really  a  tone  of  "  Hats 
off"  in  Mr.  Fronde's  introduction  of  the  golden  words 
about  to  fall  from  those  august  lips.  ^ 

Passed  through  Mr.  Fronde's  historical  alembic,  acts  of 
cruelty  and  tyranny  which  have  hitherto  made  Henry's 
name  odious  now  redound  to  his  honor.  In  great  part, 
it  appears,  these  acts  "  were  inevitable." 

Then  Thomas  Cromwell's  head  was  taken  off  because 
"  the  law  in  a  free  country  cannot  keep  pace  with  genius." 
(iii.  455.)  And  although  Cromwell  ^  was  executed  without 

1  A  single  instance:  the  historian  is  speaking  of  the  acts  of  the  reign  of 
Henry  VIII.  upon  which  the  Enghsh  Poor  Law  is  founded,  and  says,  "  They 
are  so  remarkable  in  their  tone,  and  so  rich  in  their  detail,  as  to  furnish  a 
complete  exposition  of  English  thought  at  that  time  upon  the  subject; 
while  the  second  of  these  two  acts,  and  probably  the  first  also,  has  a  further 
interest  for  us,  as  being  the  composition  of  Henry  himself,  and  the  nwst 
finished  which  he  has  left  to  us."    (i.  82.) 

Now  the  acts  here  so  admiringly  eulogized  as  the  finished  composition  of 
Henry  himself,  were  the  savage  and  brutal  laws  under  which,  in  England 
alone  of  all  Christian  countries,  the  penalty  of  poverty  was  legally  decreed 
to  be  the  stocks,  whip,  scourge,  cart-tail,  stripping  naked,  mutilation, 
branding,  felony,  and — death.  These  were  the  mild  suppressive  means 
for  beggary  used  by  a  monarch  whose  "  only  ambition,"  Mr.  Froude  as- 
sures us,  *'  was  to  govern  his  subjects  by  the  rule  of  Divine  law  and  the 
Divine  love,  to  the  salvation  of  their  souls  and  bodies."    (iii.  474.) 

To  many  the  idea  of  "  Divine  love  "  in  connection  with  the  author  of 
such  a  performance  must  appear  as  simply  blasphemous.  Even  our  enthu- 
siastic historian  has  a  glimmering  suspicion  of  this,  for  he  says  (i.  87),  iu 
speaking  of  the  horrible  law,  "  The  merit  of  it,  or  the  guilt  of  it,  if  guilt 
there  be,  originated  with  him  alone." 

2  We  have  contradictor)'-  accounts  of  the  origin  of  Episcopalianism.  Mr. 


20 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


even  pretense  of  trial  (even  Mr.  Froude  admits,  "  in  fair- 
ness, Cromwell  should  have  been  tried")  by  a  tender- 
hearted and  pious  monarch,  it  was  all  inevitable."  "  In- 
evitable," too,  was  the  foul  murder  of  Cardinal  Beaton  by 
Scotch  assassins  ^  in  Henry's  pay,  because  "  his  [Henry's] 
position  obliged  him  to  look  at  facts  as  they  were  rather 
than  through  conventional  forms."  (iv.  296.)  "Inevitable," 
too,  the  fate  of  the  amnestied  rebels  of  the  North,  because 
there  was  "no  resource  but  to  dismiss  them  out  of  a 
world  in  which  they  had  lost  their  way,  and  will  not,  or 
cannot,  recover  themselves."   (iii.  175.) 

Remedy  most  radical ;  for  it  is  plain  that  people  dis- 
patched headless  into  the  next  world  will  never  again  lose 
their  way  in  this. 

But  of  all  Mr.  Froude's  ingenious  explanations  we  find 
none  at  once  so  entertaining  and  so  edifying  as  that  as- 
signed for  the  dreadful  mortality  among  Henry's  wives. 
This  it  is.    Give  it  your  attention :  — 

"  It  woiild  have  been  well  for  Henry  VIII.  if  he  had  lived  in 
a  world  in  which  women  could  have  been  dispensed  with,  so  ill 
in  all  his  relations  with  them  he  succeeded.  With  men  he  could 
speak  the  right  word,  he  could  do  the  right  thing  ;  with  women 
he  seemed  to  be  under  a  fatal  necessity  of  mistake."    (i.  430.) 

Froude  clears  them  up.  The  so-called  Church  of  England  was,  it  seems,  a 
clever  invention  of  Thomas  Cromwell,  although  we  had  supposed  that 
Henry  VIII.  had  a  hand  in  it.  In  his  eulogy  of  Cromwell,  our  historian 
informs  us  (iii.  478),  "  Wave  after  wave  has  rolled  over  his  work.  Roman- 
ism flowed  back  over  it  under  Mary.  Puritanism,  under  another  even 
grander  Cromwell,  overwhelmed  it.  But  Romanism  ebbed  again,  and  Pu- 
ritanism is  dead,  and  the  polity  of  the  Church  of  England  remains  as  it 
was  left  by  its  creator."  Lord  Macaulay  takes  a  different  view  of  the 
movement,  and  says:  "  The  work,  which  had  been  begun  by  Henry  the 
murderer  of  his  wives,  was  continued  by  Somerset  the  murderer  of  his 
brother,  and  completed  by  Elizabeth  the  murderer  of  her  guest." 

1  On  the  authority  of  John  Knox,  Mr.  Froude  describes  the  principal 
assassin  as  "  a  man  of  nature  most  gentle  and  modest."  (iv.  4-36.)  How 
consoling  to  the  murdered  cardinal  in  his  dying  agony,  that,  "in  disregard 
of  conventional  forms,"  a  man  of  such  lovely  character  should  have  been 
hired  to  cut  his  throat  with  pious  deliberation. 


MR.  FROUDE'S  history  OF  ENGLAND. 


21 


"We  know  of  but  one  passage  in  all  our  literature  that  at 
all  approaches  this  in  original  logic  and  massive  fun.  We 
refer  to  Artemus  Ward's  opinion  concerning  one  Jefferson 
Davis :  "  It  would,"  says  A.  W.,  —  "  it  would  have  been 
better  than  ten  dollars  in  his  [J.  D.'s]  pocket  if  he'd 
never  been  born." 

Our  historian's  views  of  the  philosophy  of  history,  of  the 
agency  of  fate,  and  of  the  subordination  of  morality  to  the 
"inevitable,"  all  undergo  a  radical  change  after  leaving 
Henry  VIII.  His  partisanship  culminates  on  reaching 
Mary  Stuart,  when  it  comes  out  with  more  elaborate  ma- 
chinery of  innuendo,  more  careful  finish  of  invention,  un- 
scrupulous assertion,  wealth  of  invective,  and  relentless 
hatred.  Events  cease  to  be  inevitable.  The  historian's 
generous  supply  of  palliation  and  justification  (usually  "  by 
faith  alone  ")  has  all  been  lavished  on  Henry  or  reserved 
for  Murray. 

In  no  one  instance  is  there  "  fatal  necessity  of  mistake  " 
for  Mary  ;  and  her  sorrows,  her  misfortunes,  her  involun- 
tary errors,  and  the  infamous  outrages  inflicted  upon  her 
by  others,  are,  we  are  told,  all  crimes  of  her  own  invention 
and  perpetration.  Authorities  cited  are  mainly  her  per- 
sonal enemies  or  her  paid  detractors.  Of  what  she  herself 
wrote  or  said  there  is  rigid  economy,  and  nothing  is  allowed 
to  be  heard  from  what  is  called  "  that  suspected  source." 

Simply  as  a  question  of  space,  we  renounced  at  the  out- 
set the  idea  of  following  Mr.  Froude  through  all  his  tortu- 
ous ways,  and  only  undertook  to  point  out  some  of  his 
grossest  errors.  Proper  historic  treatment  in  the  case  is 
difficult,  not  to  say  impossible,  for  the  reason  that  he  has 
produced,  not  so  much  a  history  of  Mary  Stuart  as  a 
sweeping  indictment  in  terms  of  abuse  which  few  prosecut- 
ing attorneys  would  dare  present  in  a  criminal  court,  and 
in  which  he  showers  upon  the  Queen  of  Scots  such  epithets 
as  "  murderess,"  "  ferocious  animal,"  "  panther,"  "  wild-cat," 
and  "  brute." 


CHAPTER  in. 


"On  n'est  pas  historien  pour  avoir  ecrit  des  histoires."  — Voltaire. 

At  the  outset  we  must  confess  our  inability  to  trace 
Mr.  Froude's  every  step.  We  cannot  reasonably  be  called 
upon  to  follow  his  history  and  any  reasonably  chronological 
system  at  one  and  the  same  time.  If  such  an  attempt 
were  made,  we  should  be  compelled  to  invade  the  nursery 
of  the  infant  Mary  Stuart  with  a  discussion  of  anticipated 
accusations  brought  against  her  when  she  was  nearer  to 
her  grave  than  to  her  cradle,  for  our  historian  manages  to 
convict  her  as  a  grown  woman  while  she  is  still  a  puling 
baby  in  her  mother's  arms. 

Most  historians  begin  at  the  beginning.  But  our  new 
school  has  resources  heretofore  unknown,  and  quietly  an- 
ticipates that  ordinary  point  of  departure.  Mary  Stuart  is 
formally  brought  on  to  Mr.  Froude's  historical  stage  in  the 
middle  of  the  seventh  volume,  and  the  reader  might  be 
supposed  to  take  up  Jier  story  without  a  single  precon- 
ceived opinion.  Doubtless,  he  does  so  take  it  up,  unsus- 
picious of  the  fact  that  three  volumes  back  his  judgment 
was  already  fettered  and  led  captive.  For  already,  in  the 
fourth  volume  (p.  208),  Mary  of  Guise  is  described  as 
lifting  her  baby  out  of  the  cradle,  in  order  that  Sir  Ealph 
Sadlier  "  might  admire  its  health  and  loveliness."  "  Alas  ! 
for  the  child,"  says  Mr.  Fronde,  in  tones  of  tender  com- 
passion ;  born  in  sorrow  and  nurtured  in  treachery !  It 
grew  to  be  Mary  Stuart;  and  Sir  Ralph  Sadlier  lived  to 
sit  on  the  commission  which  investigated  the  murder  of 
Darnley." 

There  is  nothing  very  startling  in  this.    The  reader's 


ANTICIPATED  VERDICT. 


23 


mind  naturally  absorbs  the  statement,  and  he  goes  on.  In 
the  next  volume  (v.  57),  while  deeply  interested  in  the 
military  operations  of  the  Duke  of  Somerset,  we  are  told, 
as  it  were  en  passant :  "  Thursday  he  again  advanced 
over  the  ground  where,  fourteen  years  later,  Mary  Stuart, 
the  object  of  his  enterprise,  practiced  archery  with  Both- 
well  ten  days  after  her  husband's  murder." 
Consummately  artistic ! 

The  reader  has  not  yet  reached  Mary  Stuart ;  her  his- 
tory is  not  yet  commenced ;  he  supposes  his  mind,  as  re- 
gards her,  to  be  a  mere  blank  page,  and  yet  our  historian 
has  already  contrived  to  inscribe  upon  the  blank  page 
these  two  facts,  she  was  the  murderess  of  Darnley,  and 
she  was  guilty  of  adultery  with  Both  well.  Not  a  tittle 
of  evidence  has  been  offered,  no  argument  is  presented. 
With  graceful  and  almost  careless  disinvoltiira,  Mr.  Froude 
has  merely  alluded  to  two  incidents,  one  of  which  is  a  long 
exploded  falsehood,  and  lo !  the  case  against  Mary  Stuart 
is  complete.  For  these  are  the  two  great  accusations  upon 
which  the  entire  controversy  hinges,  a  controversy  that  has 
raged  for  three  centuries.  Very  clever  !  Very  clever  in- 
deed ! 

Give  but  slight  attention  to  Mr.  Fronde's  system  and 
you  will  find  that  his  treatment  of  the  historical  characters 
he  dislikes  is  after  the  recipe  of  Figaro :  "  Calomniez, 
calomniez,  il  en  reste  toujours  quelque  chose ; "  and  that 
under  the  sentimentality  of  his  "summer  seas,"  "pleasant 
mountain  breezes,"  "  murmuring  streams,"  "  autumnal  suns," 
patriotic  longings,  and  pious  reveries,  there  is  a  vein  of 
persistent  and  industrious  cunning  much  resembling  that 
of  Mr.  Harold  Skimpole,  who  is  a  perfect  child  in  all 
matters  concerning  money,  who  knows  nothing  of  its  value, 
who  "loves  to  see  the  sunshine,  loves  to  hear  the  wind 
blow :  loves  to  watch  the  chanorinor  liorhts  and  shadows  ; 
loves  to  hear  the  birds,  those  choristers  in  nature's  great 
cathedral "  —  but,  meantime,  keeps  a  sharp  look-out  for 
the  main  chance. 


24  MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 

Much  depends  upon  the  impression  made  on  the  mind 
of  the  reader  at  the  outset  of  his  study  of  any  given  his- 
torical character.  Our  English  historian  fully  appreciates 
this,  and  like  unto  the  careful  builder,  lays  his  foundations 
broad  and  deep. 

In  introducing  Mary  Stuart  he  is  lavish  of  his  best  ef- 
forts in  insinuation  and  suppression.  The  reader  naturally 
looks  to  a  great  historian  for  an  intelligible  account  of  the 
early  years  and  mental  development  of  a  character  des- 
tined to  fill  so  prominent  a  part  in  the  great  events  of  the 
period,  and  to  become  one  of  the  most  interesting  person- 
ages in  history. 

But  no  information  is  vouchsafed  concerning  her  mind, 
manners,  disposition,  or  education. 

And  herein  the  distinguished  historian  is  logical.  The 
Queen  of  Scots  is  to  be  made  sensual  and  brutish  —  what 
need,  therefore,  of  even  an  elementary  education  ?  And 
wherefore  waste  time  in  describing  the  innocent  girlhood 
of  one  whom  he  snatches  an  infant  from  her  cradle  and 
holds  up  to  his  readers,  telling  them,  "  This  child  grown 
to  woman  is  guilty  of  adultery  and  murder."  Truly  a 
work  of  supererogation. 

And  yet,  as  a  general  rule,  Mr.  Fronde  is  not  econom- 
ical of  "  birth,  parentage,  and  education  "  essays,  although, 
while  managing  to  bestow  them  on  very  secondary  per- 
sonages, he  has  none  for  Mary  Stuart.  Latimer  and  John 
Knox  are  favored  in  this  respect,  and  even  to  the  bastard 
son  of  Henry  VIII.  —  "the  young  Marcellus,"  as  Mr. 
Froude  proudly  calls  him  —  are  devoted  two  full  pages  of 
gushing  enthusiasm  concerning  his  youthful  disj^ositions 
and  early  studies.  He  was,  alas  I  "  illegitimate,  unfortu- 
nately ; "  "  hut  of  beauty  and  noble  promise."  (i.  364-366.) 
Everything  connected  with  this  result  of  Tudor  adultery 
is  touching  and  beautiful  to  Mr.  Fronde's  mind.  Henry's 
mistress  is  "  an  accomplished  and  most  interesting  person  " 

the  offspring  of  the  connection,  one  boy  only,"  —  only 


•CATHERINE  DE  MEDTCTS. 


25 


one  boy,  —  "passed  away  in  the  flower  of  his  loveliness," 
and  the  historian  in  his  wild  grief  so  far  forgets  himself  as 
to  indulge  in  the  citation  of  sentimental  verses. 

Mr.  Fronde's  educational  record  of  Mary  Stuart's 
youth  is  very  short  and  suggestive.  She  "  was  brought  up 
amidst  the  political  iniquities  of  the  court  of  Catherine  de 
Medicis."  (vii.  104.)  On  the  foundation  of  this  singular 
statement,  an  imposing  superstructure  is  raised,  and  in  all 
the  succeeding  volumes  every  pretext  is  seized  for  refer- 
ence to  the  discovery  that  the  education  of  the  child  Mary 
Stuart  was  intrusted  to  Catherine  de  Medicis.  Worse 
than  this,  the  reader  is  forced  to  suppose  that  such  educa- 
tion had  nothing  to  do  with  useful  branches  of  knowledge, 
but  was  confined  exclusively  to  lessons  in  moral  and  polit- 
ical wickedness,  and  that  from  the  moment  the  little  Queen 
of  Scots  set  foot  in  France,  she  daily  took  lessons  in 
Machiavelli  (Spelling-book,  Catechism,  and  Reader,  spe- 
cially prepared  for  the  use  of  children),  and  afterwards  at- 
tended a  regular  course  of  lectures  on  Statecraft  delivered 
by  Catherine  de  Medicis.  Even  Mr.  Burton  floats  with 
the  superficial  current  in  writing :  "  The  profound  dissimu- 
lation of  that  political  school  of  which  Catherine  de  Medi- 
cis was  the  chief  instructor,  and  her  daughter-in-law  an 
apt  scholar."  ^ 

Mr.  Fronde's  imperfect  knowledge  of  continental  history 
has  naturally  been  the  subject  of  sharp  stricture,  but  his 
critics  would  appear  to  be  more  than  justified  when  we 
find  him  making  constant  and  glib  reference  to  a  historical 

1  History  of  Scotland,  iv.  205.  Mr.  John  Hill  Burton's  History  of 
Scotland  (six  vols.),  lately  completed,  has  been  highly  praised  by  com- 
petent critics. 

On  the  history  of  primitive  Scotland  in  particular,  he  has,  it  is  said,  la- 
bored to  better  purpose  than  any  historian  before  him,  and  solved  problems 
with  which  even  the  laborious  Tytler  unsuccessfully  grappled. 

In  his  treatment  of  Mary  Stuart's  reign,  he  writes  mainly  upon  what 
was  printed  before  him,  citing  no  new  authorities.  He  assumes  the  case 
against  her  as  made,  and  treats  the  subject  in  the  tone  and  spirit  of  placid 
dogmatism. 


26 


MAKY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


fact,  which,  on  examination,  proves  to  be  an  individual 
fjincy,  for  Mary  Stuart  never  was  at  the  court  of  Catlierine 
de  Medicis.  During  Mary's  sojourn  in  France,  the  royal 
court  was  that  of  Henry  II.,  and  later,  of  Francis  11. 
Charles  IX.  succeeded  his  brother  Francis. 

During  all  this  period  there  was  no  such  thing  known  as 
the  court  of  Catherine  de  Medicis.  True,  she  was  the 
Avife  of  Henry  11.  and  the  mother  of  Francis  and  Charles, 
but  the  court  was  the  court  of  the  reigning  king,  and  was 
so  far  from  being  even  nominally  that  of  Catherine 
through  personal  or  political  influence  —  that,  although 
queen  consort  and  queen  mother,  she  was  a  mere  cipher, 
an  unknown  quantity  ^  until  she  governed  in  the  name  of 
Charles  IX. 

But  Mary  Stuart  had  then  left  France  for  Scotland,  and 
it  was  only  then  that  the  astute  and  unprincipled  Catherine, 
whom  we  know  through  history,  first  came  into  recognized 
existence. 

Even  a  moderate  acquaintance  with  French  historians 
might  have  taught  Mr.  Froude  that  for  twenty-six  long 
years  Catherine  de  Medicis  merely  vegetated  at  the 
French  court  without  influence,  and  even  totally  ignored 
or  looked  upon  with  suspicion  and  contempt,  and  that  she 
moreover  quietly  accepted  and  even  cultivated  the  utter 
obscurity  to  which  she  was  condemned.^  Hopes,  jealous- 
ies, resentments,  ambition,  she  may  have  had,  but  if  they 
ever  existed  she  certainly  smothered  them  all.  Nor  did 
she  in  all  those  years  give  any  indication  of  the  marked 
ability  and  clever  wickedness  for  which  she  afterwards  be- 
came celebrated,  and  of  which  she  appears  to  have  herself 
so  long  been  in  ignorance. 

French  history  specially  records  that  all  the  advantage 

1  '•  Son  mari  I'avait  laiss^e  sans  credit  et  sans  poiivoir."  —  Sismondi, 
Hisliiij'e  (Jcs  Fi-antuds^  vol.  xviii.  p.  101. 

2  The  historian  Si-mondi  states  this  very  forcibl}^:  "  Depuis  vinjjt-six  ans 
elle  ^tait  t'tablie  a  la  cour  de  France,  et  cependant  elle  avait  reiissi  a  y 
dissimuler  en  qiielque  sorte  son  existence." 


CATHERINE  DE  MEDICIS. 


27 


she  derived  from  tlie  title  of  Queen  was  the  honor  of  bear- 
ing children  to  the  king.  Her  life,  until  after  the  decease 
of  her  husband  and  eldest  son,  was  one  of  long  constraint; 
yet  under  the  habitual  cold  reserve  and  constant  dissimu- 
lation she  imposed  upon  herself,  it  is  more  than  probable 
that  she  nourished  the  machiavellic  genius  and  universal 
skepticism  of  which  she  afterwards  gave  such  striking 
proofs 

As  to  the  personal  relations  between  Catherine  de  IMed- 
icis  and  the  young  Mary  Stuart,^  it  is  notorious  that  on  the 
part  of  the  latter  there  always  existed  an  invincible  repul- 
sion towards  the  queen  mother.  There  was  no  more  so- 
cial intercourse  betwen  them  than  the  ceremonious  polite- 
ness exacted  by  rigorous  court  etiquette.  And  Catherine 
repaid  the  young  Scotch  girl's  repugnance  with  a  hatred  as 
intense  as  that  of  Elizabeth.  If  for  nothing  else,  she  hated 
Mary  because  she  was  a  Guise.  In  later  years,  more  than 
once  in  her  sad  calamities  Mary  Stuart  would  have  left 
Scotland  to  take  refuge  in  France  but  for  the  presence  and 
influence  of  the  queen  mother. 

With  Catherine's  accession  to  power  in  the  name  of  the 
boy  king  Charles  IX.  (ten  years  of  age),  a  new  existence 
was  opened  to  her. 

*  Accustomed  to  neglect,  slights,  suspicion,  and  hatred,  she 
was  surprised  at  any  manifestation  of  deference  and  re- 
spect.^ Power  once  assured  to  her,  she  for  the  first  time 
stood  revealed  to  the  world  as  the  Catherine  de  Medicis 
known  to  modern  history.  And  then  followed  the  "  polit- 
ical iniquities  "  spoken  of  by  Mr.  Fronde.  If  Catherine  was 
a  mere  cipher  during  her  husband's  reign,  she  was,  if  possi- 
ble, of  still  less  importance  after  the  accession  of  Francis 
II.,  Mary  Stuart's  first  husband.  Sismondi  describes  her 
as  not  certam  either  of  his  obedience  or  his  respect,  and 

1  See  Appendix  No.  1. 

2  "  La  plus  belle ;  la  plus  aimable,  la  plus  gracleuse  personne  de  la  cour." 
Martin,  vol.  x.  p.  1. 

3  See  Appendix  No.  2. 


28 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


Mr.  Fronde  is  very  nearly  correct  in  saying  (vii.  310), 
that  "  Catherine  who  in  the  reign  of  Francis  had  seen  the 
honor  of  the  throne  given  to  the  Queen  of  Scots  and  the 
power  of  the  throne  to  the  Duke  of  Guise  and  his  brothers, 
had  wrongs  of  her  own  to  avenge." 

And  yet,  full  well  knowing  that  her  uncles,  the  Guises, 
held  the  power,  our  historian  constantly  misrepresents  this 
innocent  girl  Mary  as  the  originator  and  executor  of  all 
their  political  moves  and  combinations,  —  such  as  the  as- 
sumption of  the  arms  of  England  and  the  refusal  to  ratify 
the  treaty  of  Leith.  He  describes  her  as  solely  occupied 
with  ambitious  projects  of  which  she  had  no  conception, 
and  desirous  of  reaching  Scotland  rapidly,  "  with  a  purpose 
as  fixed  as  the  stars."  The  historical  fact  is  that  she  had 
neither  intention  nor  wish  to  go  to  Scotland  as  its  queen. 
Even  Mignet  ^  admits  that  she  went  "  less  from  choice  than 
from  necessity."  ^  Her  mother  was  dead,  and  now  all  her 
affections,  all  her  hopes  were  in  France.  Catherine's  hatred 
for  her  was  now  no  longer  a  secret  for  any  one,  and  Mary, 
after  the  burial  of  her  husband,  went  into  retirement  in 
Lorraine,  far  away  from  the  court.  Not  long  was  she  al- 
lowed to  remain,  for  her  uncles  forced  her  to  go  to  Scot- 
land, and  she  embarked  broken-hearted  and  in  tears.^ 

In  view  of  the  immeasurable  advantage  possessed  by 
Mr.  Froude  in  his  positive  knowledge  of  all  that  was  pass- 
ing in  the  mind  of  Mary  Stuart  more  than  three  hundred 
years  ago,  we  almost  feel  ashamed  to  cite  in  contradiction 
the  testimony  of  such  historians  as  Sismondi  and  Martin 
("  History  crowned  by  the  French  Institute  "),  who  bring  to 

1  See  Appendix  No.  3. 

2  Even  Ch^ruel  {Marie  Stuart  et  Catherine  de  Medicis)  says,  "  Mary- 
Stuart  was  forced  to  leave  her  adopted  France  to  return  to  her  native 
country,"  and  he  speaks  of  Catherine  as  one,  "qui  n'avait  jamais  aime  Ma- 
rie Stuart." 

Castelnaii  in  his  Memoirs  referring  to  the  forced  departure  of  the  young 
Queen,  says:  La  reine  mere  trouva  fort  bon  et  expedient  de  s'en  ddfaire. 

3  Sr«  Appendix  No.  4. 


INTROSPECTIVE  POWER. 


29 


their  task,  erudition,  research,  and  judgment,  without  a  tit- 
tle of  psychological  intuition.  Their  system  is  not  that  of 
pur  modern  English  historian.  They  read  ancient  books, 
old  letters,  and  musty  documents.  He  reads  the  heart ;  and 
"  she  had  anticipated,"  "  she  wrapped  her  disappoint- 
ment," "she  was  going  to  use  her  charms  as  a  spell," 
"  to  weave  the  fibres  of  a  conspiracy,"  "  to  control  herself, 
to  hide  her  purpose,"  "  with  a  purpose  as  fixed  as  the 
stars,"  are  mild  specimens  of  his  power  of  retrospective 
psychological  introspection. 


CHAPTER  IV. 


"  Son  dducation  extremement  soignde  avait  ajoutd  des  talents  varies  k 
ses  graces  natu relies."  —  Mignet. 

Some  well-meaning  friends  of  Mary  Stuart's  memory, 
victims  of  the  historic  delusion  concerning  the  so-called 
"  court  of  Catherine  de  Medicis,"  seek  to  palliate  the 
case  which  they  weakly  accept  as  made  against  her,  by 
pleading  the  bad  influences  and  "  the  errors  of  a  French 
education,"  to  which  her  youth  was  subjected.  No  such 
defense  is  needed.  Here  is  the  plain  historical  record. 
The  first  six  years  of  her  life  were  spent  in  Scotland  un- 
der the  care  of  the  fondest  of  mothers  and  most  admirable 
of  women. 

Instructed  by  Erskine  and  Alexander  Scott,  the  child 
learned  geography,  history,  and  Latin,  with  needle-work  and 
embroidery  from  her  governess  Lady  Fleming.  The  prog- 
ress of  the  little  scholar  was  rapid.  From  the  time  of 
her  arrival  in  France  (August  20,  1548)  she  was  placed 
under  the  care  of  her  grandmother,  the  austere  Antoinette 
de  Bourbon,  and  of  the  learned  Margaret  of  France,^  sis- 
ter of  Henry  IL,  the  protectress  of  Michel  de  I'Hopital. 

Cardinal  Lorraine  took  charge  of  her  education,  and 
had  appointed  as  her  governess  Madame  Parois,  a  lady  of 
such  well-known  piety  as  to  be  called  a  devotee.  She  was 
morose  and  strict  to  harshness. 

Mary's  application  to  her  studies  absorbed  all  her  time. 
Her  proficiency  in  Latin  and  Italian  was  wonderful.  "  She 
both  spoke  and  understood  Latin  admirably  well,"  says 

i"Sopra  tutto  erudita,  e  ben  dotta  nella  lingua  latina,  greca,  et  auche 
italiana  "  —  Marino  Cavalli. 


MARY'S  MARRIAGE. 


31 


BrantOme.  Her  progress  in  Greek,  geography,  and  his- 
tory was  also  great,  and  she  excelled  in  needle-work.  Her 
uncle  the  king  loved  her  as  dearly  as  his  own  children, 
and  thinking  her  application  to  study  too  close,  Avould 
frequently  take  her  off  to  his  chateau  at  Meudon,  where, 
mounted,  she  would  accompany  him  to  the  chase. 

At  the  age  of  eleven,  while  still  pursuing  her  studies 
witli  energy,  a  separate  royal  establishment  was  created  for 
her,  and  from  this  time  she  had  to  receive  deputations, 
addresses,  and  appeals  from  the  rival  parties  in  Scotland. 
The  discreetness  and  modesty  of  her  bearing  elicited  ad- 
miration. Her  Scotch  nurse  Janet  Kemp,  and  Janet's 
husband  John  Kemp,  as  valet  de  chamhre,  were  nearest 
her  person  ;  and  the  Earl  of  Livingstone  and  Lord  Erskine 
her  two  lord  keepers,  with  a  large  retinue  of  young 
Scotch  nobles,  acting  as  gentlemen  in  waiting,  as  equer- 
ries, and  pages  were  in  constant  attendance  upon  her. 

At  the  age  of  sixteen  Mary  was  united  in  marriage  to 
the  young  Francis  of  Valois,  to  whom  she  had  long  been 
betrothed.  The  young  people  had  grown  up  together  in 
youthful  affection.  Buchanan,  whose  veracity  and  sincerity 
are  so  highly  praised  by  Mr.  Fronde,  speaks  of  the  — 

"  Awful  majesty  her  carriage  bears: 
Maturely  grave  even  in  her  tender  years." 

Mignet  tells  us  of  "  Son  aspect  noble  et  gracieux." 

Mary  was  then  the  cynosure  of  all  eyes,  the  rising  regal 
sun  ;  but  ten  short  years  later,  betrayed,  dethroned,  and  in 
prison. 

After  her  marriage  Mary  continued  to  read  Latin  with 
Buchanan,  history  with  De  Pasquier,  and  poetry  with 
Ronsard.  Her  serious  illness  at  this  time  was  greatly  ag- 
gravated by  the  mental  distress  occasioned  by  the  news 
from  Scotland  concernin<j  the  devastation  and  ruin  wrou(jht 
by  the  so-called  Reformers  (Knox  says  it  was  "the  rascal 
multitude"),  who  tore  down,  burned,  and  destroyed  palaces, 
cathedrals,  monasteries,  and  libraries.    The  English  Am- 


32 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


bassador  reported,  "  The  Scottish  Queen  looketh  very  ill, 
very  sallow,  and  therewithal  short-breathed.  It  is  whis- 
pered that  she  cannot  live."  And  this  was  the  commence- 
ment of  a  series  of  illnesses  which  never  left  her. 

Mr.  Froude  strives  throughout  his  work  to  give  the  im- 
pression that  Mary  Stuart  had  the  robust  health  of  a  hunter 
and  the  constitution  of  a  coal-heaver,  when,  in  point  of 
fact,  she  was  rarely  ever  exempt  from  physical  ailment 
and  suffering. 

Henry  11.  of  France  died  July  10,  1559.  Francis  TI. 
was  crowned  in  September,  and  now  Mary  became  the 
young  French  Queen.  For  the  time  she  forgot  in  her 
own  affliction  her  antipathy  to  her  uncle's  widow,  and 
the  kind  and  sympathizi:ng  attentions  of  Mary  and  Francis 
were  remarked  by  all. 

But  Catherine's  grief  came  to  sudden  termination  on 
finding  that  she  could  not  rule  the  young  king,  her  son,^ 
and  that  all  state  affairs  were  disposed  of  by  the  young 
queen's  uncles.  Catherine  had  all  the  good-will  to  injure 
Mary  ;  but  attack  would  have  been  useless,  for  her  reputa- 
tion was  invulnerable.  The  purity  of  her  life  and  manners 
was  known  of  all ;  her  influence  for  honor  and  morality 
was  as  clearly  recognized  as  that  of  Catherine  for  the  con- 
trary ;  nor  has  Mary's  most  malignant  enemy  dared  to  con- 
nect her  name  with  any  tale  of  scandal  during  all  her 
residence  in  France. 

Meanwhile,  her  health  still  sank,  and  the  English  Am- 
bassador reports  her  "  fallen  sick  again  so  that,  at  even 
song,  she  was  for  faintness  constrained  to  be  led  to  her 
chamber,  where  she  swooned  twice  or  thrice." 

The  dislike  of  Catherine  for  her  son  Francis  increased, 
and  she  tampered  with  his  political  enemies,  although 
openly  caressing  him.^    Francis  died  in  December,  1560. 

1  Sismondi. 

2  Regnier  de  la  Planche,  the  Protestant  historian  of  the  reign  of  Francis 
11.,  speaking  of  the  Guises  and  Catherine,  says :  "  lis  savaient  son  natiirel 


MARY  STUART  AT  KIGHTEKN. 


33 


Mary  Stuart  is  tliiLS  prescMitecl  by  our  English  historian : 
"  She  was  not  yet  nineteen  years  old  ;  but  mind  and  body 
had  matured  amidst  the  scenes  in  which  she  passed  her 
girlhood."  (vii.  2G8.)  This  is  at  once  a  very  remarkable 
statement  and  a  mild  specimen  of  Mr.  F'roude's  command 
of  ambiguous  language.  Very  close  and  philosophical  ob- 
servers have,  we  think,  occasionally  noticed  the  phenome- 
non indicated ;  and  although  it  might  not  at  once  occur  to 
every  one  that  young  girls  usually  mature  amidst  the  scenes 
of  their  girlhood,  yet  it  was  hardly  worth  the  effort  of  a 
philosophic  historian  to  astonish  us  with  so  startling  a  dis- 
covery. But  we  suspect  Mr.  Froude  of  a  deeper  meaning, 
namely,  that  mind  and  body  had  then  —  at  eighteen  years 
—  attained  their  full  growth,  and  that  Mary  Stuart,  at  the 
tender  age  of  eighteen,  was  abnormal  and  monstrous.  It 
means  that,  or  it  is  mere  twaddle. 

The  writer  drives  his  entering  wedge  so  noiselessly  that 
you  are  scarce  aware  of  it,  and  in  the  development  of  the 
story  he  strains  all  his  faculties  to  paint  the  Queen  of 
Scots,  not  only  as  the  worst  and  most  abandoned  of  women, 
but  as  absolutely  destitute  of  human  semblance  in  her 
superhuman  wickedness.  That  such  is  the  effect  of  his 
portraiture,  is  well  expressed  by  an  English  critic  —  a 
friend  of  Mr.  Froude,  but  not  of  Mary :  "  A  being  so 
earthly,  sensual,  and  devilish  seems  almost  beyond  the  pro- 
portions of  human  nature."  ^ 

Mr.  Froude  then  gives  us  a  portrait  of  the  young  Scot- 
tish Queen,  in  which  (vii.  368)  the  little  that  might  be  to 
her  credit  is  vapory  and  ambiguous,  and  the  insinuations 
to  her  injury  are  as  sharp  as  a  definition.  Those  who  ap- 
preciate the  character  of  Mary  Stuart  will  smile  at  the  fol- 
lowing handsome  concession  :  "  In  intellectual  gifts,  Mary 
Stuart  was  at  least  Elizabeth's  equal."    But  then,  per  con^ 

§tre  de  caresser  ceux  qui  la  roudoyaient ;  raais  ils  se  fiaient  nullement  a 
ses  caresses,"  and  elsewhere  he  refers  to  her  "  larmes  de  crocodile." 
1  Lcnidon  Times,  September  26tli,  18GG. 
3 


34 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


tra :  "  In  the  deeper  and  nobler  emotions  she  had  neither 
share  nor  sympathy  ; "  and  herein,  it  is  explained,  "  lay  the 
difference  between  the  Queen  of  Scots  and  Elizabeth." 

Throckmorton,  a  clever  and  experienced  diplomatist,  was 
near  Mary  in  France  for  many  years,  and,  with  the  fullest 
means  of  information,  advised  Elizabeth  day  by  day  con- 
cerning her.  She  is  the  subject  of  scores  of  his  dispatches, 
with  none  of  which,  however,  are  we  favored  by  Mr. 
Froude.  Throckmorton  thus  announces  to  Cecil  Mary's 
condition  after  the  death  of  King  Francis  :  — 

"  He  departed  to  God,  leaving  as  heavy  and  dolorous  a  wife  as 
of  good  right  she  had  reason  to  be,  who,  by  long  watching  with 
him  during  his  sickness,  and  by  painful  diligence  about  him, 
especially  the  issue  thereof,  is  not  in  the  best  time  of  her  body 
but  without  danger." 

But  Mr.  Froude,  ready  to  reveal  for  our  entertainment  the 
inmost  thoughts  of  this  "  dolorous  wife,"  enlightens  us  with 
his  exclusive  information  that  "  Mary  was  speculating  be- 
fore the  body  was  cold  on  her  next  choice."  Throckmorton, 
all  unconscious  of  the  annoyance  he  must  give  a  nineteenth 
century  historian,  again  writes  to  Cecil :  — 

"  Since  her  husband's  death  she  hath  shown,  and  so  continueth, 
that  she  is  of  great  wisdom  for  her  years,  modesty,  and  also  of 
great  judgment  in  the  wise  handling  herself  and  her  matters, 
which,  increasing  in  her  with  her  years,  cannot  but  turn  to  her 
commendation,  reputation,  honor,"  and  great  profit  to  her  coun- 
try." 

He  continues :  — 

"  I  see  her  behavior  to  be  such,  and  her  wisdom  and  queenly 
modesty  so  great,  in  that  she  thinketh  herself  not  too  wise,  but  is 
content  to  be  ruled  by  good  counsel  and  wise  men." 

Fully  to  appreciate  Throckmorton^s  means  of  informa- 
tion, it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  ambassador  of  that 
day  was  an  official  spy  upon  the  court  to  which  he  was  ac- 
credited, and  to  his  own  sovereign  fulfilled  the  duties  of  the 
special  newspaper  correspondent  of  the  year  1871  in  gath- 


MARY  Stuart's  diplomacy. 


35 


ering  up  and  reporting  every  item  of  interesting  news.  If 
a  word  had  ever  been  said  in  France  against  the  young 
Mary  Stuart,  we  would  have  found  it  reported  by  Throck- 
morton, if  by  no  one  else. 

Much  is  made  by  our  historian  of  what  he  represents  to  , 
be  Mary's  cunning  diplomacy  with  Elizabeth's  minister. 

If  Mary  had  been  the  "actress,"  the  woman  of  "craft" 
Mr.  Froude  makes  of  her,  she  might  readily  have  smoothed 
over  the  difficulty  with  Elizabeth  and  obtained  what  she 
wanted  by  intimating  the  possibility  of  her  embracing  the 
Protestant  faith.  Throckmorton  had  been  specially  in- 
structed to  sound  her  on  this  important  question,  and  it 
would  have  been  easy  for  Mary,  without  committing  her- 
self, to  listen  attentively,  appear  to  be  impressed,  and 
promise  to  take  the  matter  into  serious  consideration.  Soon 
afterwards,  according  to  Mr.  Froude,  she  was  a  "  consum- 
mate actress."  On  this  occasion  she  certainly  was  not,  for 
she  stopped  Throckmorton  on  the  very  threshold  of  his 
"  sounding,"  thus  :  — 

"  I  will  be  plain  with  you  :  the  religion  which  I  profess,  I  take 
to  be  the  most  acceptable  to  God ;  and  indeed,  neither  do  I  know, 
nor  desire  to  know,  any  other.  I  have  been  brought  up  in  this 
religion,  and  who  might  credit  me  in  anything  if  I  might  show 
myself  Hght  in  this  case  ?  " 

She  concluded :  — 

"  You  may  perceive  that  I  am  none  of  those  that  will  change 
my  religion  every  year ;  and  as  I  told  you  in  the  beginning,  I 
mean  to  constrain  none  of  my  subjects,  but  would  wish  they 
were  all  as  I  am ;  and  I  trust  they  shall  have  no  support  to  con- 
strain me." 

M.  Mignet,  quite  as  decided  an  enemy  of  Mary  Stuart 
as  Mr.  Froude,  is,  nevertheless,  too  much  at  home  in 
French  history  to  perpetrate  the  blunders  of  his  English 
ally.  Of  the  influence  of  Catherine  de  Medicis  he  has, 
of  course,  not  a  word.    He  accords  Mary  fair  credit  for 


36 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


her  intellectual  and  moral  charms,  and  for  her  application 
to  serious  studies. 

As  to  the  political  acts  signed  by  Mary,  under  the  in- 
fluence of  the  Guises,  and  which  are  represented  by  Mr. 
Froude  as  wholly  due  to  Mary  Stuart's  precocious  states- 
manship, M.  Mignet  has  the  fairness  to  admit  that  she 
cannot  be  reproached  with  them  because  of  her  youth  and 
her  dependence  upon  others  (a  laquelle  on  ne  saurait  re- 
procher  cette  faute,  tant  elle  etait  encore  jeune  et  liviee 
aux  volontes  d'autrui)  ;  and  he  thus  indicates  the  first  ap- 
pearance of  Catherine  de  Medicis  on  the  political  stage: 
"  With  Charles  IX.  opened  a  new  system,  under  the  crafty 
direction  of  Catherine  de  Medicis,  who  feared  the  Guises, 
hated  Mary  Stuart,"  etc.    (i.  91.) 

Had  it  been  possible  for  Mr.  Froude  to  produce  one 
word  of  testimony  from  France  concerning  Mary  Stuart's 
youth  that  was  not  of  respect,  praise,  and  admiration,  from 
friend  or  foe,  he  surely  would  not  have  failed  to  cite  it. 

In  this  dilemma,  he  travels  all  the  way  to  Scotland  and 
quotes*  Randolph,  Elizabeth's  agent  (vii.  369),  to  show 
her  craft  and  deceit ; "  adding,  "  Such  was  Mary  Stuart 
when  on  the  14th  of  Auo;ust  she  embarked  for  Scotland." 

But  Randolph  at  that  time  had  never  seen  Mary  Stuart, 
and  the  date  of  his  letter  cited  by  Mr.  Froude  is  October 
27th.  Under  these  circumstances  it  becomes  interesting 
to  know  what  Randolph's  opinion  of  Mary  really  was  be- 
fore she  left  France.  Randolph  writes  to  Cecil,  August 
9th,  referring  to  Mary's  preparations  for  departure,  "  That 
will  be  a  stout  adventure  for  a  sick,  crazed  woman." 

Mary's  application  to  Elizabeth  for  a  safe  conduct  had 
been  publicly  refused  in  so  unseemly  and  discourteous  a 
manner  as  to  create  some  scandal  at  the  English  court. 
Elizabeth  fitly  completed  the  insult  by  ordering  her  fleet 
to  intercept  and  capture  Mary.  Throckmorton  thus  re- 
ports to  Elizabeth  herself  the  young  Scotch  Queen's  re- 
ception of  the  refusal.    "  It  seemeth,"  she  said,  "  she 


MMIY  SAILS  FOR  SCOTLAND. 


37 


nmketh  more  account  of  the  amity  of  my  disobedient 
subjects  than  she  doth  of  me  their  sovereign,  who  am  her 
equal  in  degree,  though  inferior  in  wisdom  and  experience ; 
her  nearest  kinswoman  and  her  nearest  neighbor.  But, 
Mr.  Ambassador,  it  will  be  thought  very  strange  amongst 
all  princes  and  countries  that  she  should  first  animate  my 
subjects  against  me  ;  and  second,  being  a  widow,  to  im- 
peach my  going  into  my  own  country.  I  ask  her  nothing 
but  friendship.  I  do  not  trouble  her  state,  nor  practice 
with  her  subjects.  The  Queen,  your  mistress,  doth  say 
that  I  am  young  and  do  lack  experience ;  but  I  trust  that 
my  discretion  shall  not  so  fail  me,  that  my  passion  shall 
move  me  to  use  other  language  of  her  than  it  becometh  of 
a  queen  and  my  nearest  kinswoman."  A  lesson  more 
complete  and  dignified  on  honesty  and  decent  conduct 
Elizabeth  probably  never  received.  Mary  concluded  by 
saying  that  she  trusted  that  the  wind  might  prove  favor- 
able ;  but  if  not,  she  might  be  driven  on  the  English  shore 
and  placed  in  Elizabeth's  power.  "  And  if,"  continued 
Mary,  "  she  be  so  hard-hearted  as  to  desire  my  end,  she 
then  may  do  her  pleasure.  Peradventure  that  might  be 
better  for  me  than  to  live."   Her  foreboding  was  prophetic. 

Even  for  a  sea  voyage,  Mr.  Froude  continues  to  prefer 
a  microscope  to  a  telescope.  The  consequence  is,  that  out 
of  an  escort  of  Mary's  three  uncles,  all  her  ladies,  includ- 
ing the  four  Marys,  more  than  a  hundred  French  noble- 
men, the  Mareschal  d'Amville,  Brantome  the  historian,  and 
other  distinguished  men,  a  doctor  of  theology,  two  physi- 
cians, and  all  her  household  retinue,  he  can  discern  no  one 
but  Chatelar,  who  was,  as  a  retainer  of  d'Amville,  in  that 
nobleman's  suite.  And  so  we  read,  "  With  adieu,  belle 
France,  sentimental  verses,  and  a  passionate  Chatelar 
sighing  at  her  feet  in  melodious  music,  she  sailed  away 
over  the  summer  seas."  We  must  in  candor  admit  this 
to  be  a  sweetly  pretty  passage,  although  open  to  some  ob- 
jections ;  for  even  if  Chatelar  were  on  the  vessel,  which  is 


38 


MAEY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


"more  than  doubtful,  the  historians  of  the  period  have  made 
no  record  of  his  sighing,  and  there  was  positively  no  music 
but  the  sound  of  Mary  Stuart's  sobbing  and  weeping. 

But  in  the  next  paragraph  Mr.  Froude  puts  away  senti- 
mentality, means  business,  and  throws  a  bright  light-  on  a 
previous  line :  "  Elizabeth  could  feel  like  a  man  an  un- 
selfish interest  in  a  great  cause."  Here  is  the  paragraph, 
admirable  in  every  respect :  — 

"  The  English  fleet  was  on  her  track.  There  was  no  command 
to  arrest  her  ;  yet  there  was  the  thought  that  '  she  might  be  met 
withal ; '  and  if  the  admiral  had  sent  her  ship  with  its  freight 
to  the  bottom  of  the  North  Sea,  '  being  done  unknown,'  Eliza- 
beth, and  perhaps  Catherine  de  Medicis  as  well,  '  would  have 
found  it  afterward  well  done.'  "    (vii.  370.) 

Of  course,  if  "  done  unknown  "  it  would  have  been  "well 
done ; "  because  "  in  the  deeper  and  nobler  emotions  Mary 
had  neither  share  nor  sympathy;"  whereas  Elizabeth  and 
Catherine  de  Medicis  had. 

In  the  kindness  of  her  heart,  Mary  Stuart's  mother  had 
made  the  great  mistake  of  allowing  James  Stewart  to  ac- 
company his  little  sister  to  France.  James  Stewart  was 
brought  up  with  the  young  Mary,  and  she  looked  confid- 
ingly to  the  playmate  and  friend  of  her  happy,  childish 
Scotch  days.  He  was  sufficiently  young  to  enlist  all  her 
sisterly  affection,  and  old  enough  (ten  years  her  senior)  to 
be  her  trusted  friend  and  guide.  We  shall  presently  see 
him  become  "  the  stainless  Murray "  of  Mr.  Fronde's 
pages.  At  twenty  he  was  already  the  paid  and  pensioned 
spy  of  Elizabeth  and  the  betrayer  of  his  sister.  Even 
Mignet  admits  that  he  was  "  not  incapable  of  dissimulation 
and  treachery."  A  dispatch  of  Throckmorton  to  Elizabeth 
{7iot  referred  to  in  Froude)  reveals  the  nature  of  this 
"  stainless  "  gentleman's  doings  in  France  :  — 

"  The  Lord  James  came  to  my  lodgings  secretly  unto  me,  and 
declared  unto  me  at  good  length  all  that  had  passed  between  the 
Queen,  his  sister,  and  him,  and  between  the  Cardinal  Lorraine 


JAMES  STEWART. 


39 


and  him,  the  circumstances  whereof  he  will  declare  to  your  maj- 
esty particularly  when  he  cometh  to  your  presence." 

This  business  call  of  Lord  James  was  made  during 
Mary's  preparations  to  leave  France  for  Scotland.  He 
followed  it  up  with  a  confidential  visit  of  some  days  to 
Elizabeth  in  London,  although  Mary  had  specially  desired 
his  escprt  to  Scotland,  and  earnestly  requested  that  he 
should  not  go  by  England.  Unsuspicious  of  his  treachery, 
Mary  heaped  honors  and  riches  upon  him,  made  him  her 
first  lord  of  council,  and  created  him  successively  Earl  of 
Mar  and  Earl  of  Murray, 


838  19 


CHAPTER  V. 


ARRIVAL  IN  SCOTLAND. 

*'  It  often  seems  to  me  as  if  History  was  like  a  child's  box  of  letters,  with 
which  we  can  spell  any  word  we  please."  —  iihort  Studies  on  Great  Sub- 
jects,hy  James  Anthony  Feoude,  p.  7. 

The  unclisi^uted  record  of  Mary's  arrival  in  Edinburgh 
is,  that  her  surpassing  beauty  and  charm  of  address,  aris- 
ing not  so  much  from  her  courtly  training  as  her  kindly 
heart,  created  a  profound  impression  on  a  people  who  al- 
ready reverenced  in  her  a  descendant  of  the  heroic  Bruce, 
and  the  daughter  of  a  popular  king,  and  of  one  of  the  noblest 
and  best  of  women.  The  young  Queen  soon  won  the  hearts 
of  the  people  of  Edinburgh  by  her  sweetness  and  grace. 

The  Scottish  historian  Robertson  says,  "  The  beauty  and 
gracefulness  of  her  person  drew  universal  admiration  ;  the 
elegance  and  politeness  of  her  manners  commanded  gen- 
eral respect.  To  all  the  charms  of  her  sex,  she  added 
many  accomplishments  of  the  other.  The  progress  she 
had  made  in  all  the  arts  and  sciences  was  far  beyond  what 
is  commonly  attained  by  princes." 

Mr.  Froude  thus  renders  this  record  :  "  The  dreaded 
harlot  of  Babylon  seemed  only  a  graceful  and  innocent 
girl."  (vii.  374.)  In  common  fairness,  Mr.  Froude  should 
have  given  some  adequate  idea  of  the  condition  of  the 
country  this  inexperienced  young  queen  was  called  to  rule. 
This  he  fails  to  do.  It  was  such  that  the  ablest  sovereign, 
with  full  supply  of  money  and  of  soldiers  —  and  Mary 
Stuart  had  neither  ^  —  would  have  found  its  successful  gov- 
ernment almost  impossible. 

1  "  While  every  head  of  a  considerable  family  down  to  the  humble  land- 


THE  SCOTCH  NOBLES. 


41 


The  power  of  the  feudal  aristocracy  had  declined  in 
Europe  everywhere  but  in  Scotland ;  and  everywhere  but 
in  Scotland  royal  power  had  been  increased.  .For  cen- 
turies the  Scottish  kings  had  striven  to  break  down  the 
power  of  the  nobles,  which  overshadowed  that  of  the 
crown.  One  of  the  results  of  this  struggle  is  quaintly  re- 
corded in  the  opening  entry  of  Birrel's  Diurnal  of  Occur- 
rents  " :  — 

"  There  has  been  in  this  realm  of  Scotland  one  hundred  and 
five  kings,  of  whilk  there  was  slaine  fyftie-six." 

Another  result  was  greater  aristocratic  power  and  in- 
9.  creased  anarchy.  Robertson,  indeed,  pictures  his  country 
at  that  time  as  "in  a  state  of  pure  anarchy,"  —  "  when  the 
administration  fell  into  the  hands  of  a  young  queen,  not 
nineteen  years  of  age,  unacquainted  with  the  manners  and 
laws  of  her  country,  a  stranger  to  her  subjects,  without  ex- 
perience, without  allies,  and  without  a  friend."  The  Scotch 
feudal  nobles  had  never  known  what  it  was  to  be  under  the 
rule  of  law,  and  there  was  as  yet  no  middle  class  to  aid  the 
sovereign.  Among  their  recognized  practices  and  privi- 
leges were  private  war  and  armed  conspiracy ;  and  the  es- 
tablished means  of  ridding  themselves  of  personal  or  pub- 
lic enemies  was  assassination. 

This  insubordination  of  the  Scotch  aristocracy  was  of 
itself  sufficient  to  render  any  royal  rule  a  task  of  stupen- 
dous difficulty.  Unfortunately  for  this  young  girl  queen, 
two  other  causes  combined  therewith  made  it  simply  im- 
possible :  these  were,  first,  the  jealous  enmity  of  the  Eng- 
lish government,  which,  with  men,  money,  spies,  and  plots 
never  ceased  its  work  ;  and,  second,  the  most  potent  and 
dangerous,  because  the  least  tangible,  the  religious  hatred 
born  of  the  Reformation. 

Of  itself,  either  of  these  causes  might  have  been  suffi- 

owner,  had  some  regular  armed  following,  the  crown  alone  had  none. 
....  All  Mary's  efforts  to  establish  a  royal  guard  were  sternly  resisted."  . 
—  Burton,  History  of  Scotland,  vol.  iv.  p.  174. 


42 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


cient.  Combined,  —  and  they  were  coinbincd  with  skill, 
judgment,  and  rancorous  fervor  of  ferocity,  —  the  result 
was  simply  a  question  of  time.  And  short  the  time  was. 
Mary  landed  in  Scotland  in  August,  1561,  and  in  June, 
1567,  was  a  dethroned  prisoner  at  Lochleven. 

In  all  history  we  find  few  bands  of  worse  men  than  those 
who  surrounded  the  throne  of  Mary  Stuart.  Cruelty, 
treachery,  and  cunning  were  their  leading  characteristics- 
Some  of  them  were  Protestants  in  their  own  peculiar  way, 
and,  as  John  Knox  says,  referring  to  the  disposition  of  the 
church  lands,  "  for  their  own  commoditie." 

Personally,  they  are  thus  described  by  Burton,  the  latest 
historian  of  Scotland,  a  bitter  opponent  of  Mary  Stuart :  — 

"  Their  dress  was  that  of  the  camp  or  stable ;  they  were  dirty 
in  person,  and  abrupt  and  disrespectful  in  manner,  carrying  on 
their  disputes,  and  even  fighting  out  their  fierce  quarrels,  in  the 
presence  of  royalty." 

Mary  came  to  reign  over  S,  country  virtually  in  the  power 
of  a  band  of  violent  and  rapacious  lords,  long  in  rebellion 
against  their  king.  Of  the  five  royal  Jameses,  three  had 
perished,  victims  of  aristocratic  anarchy.  The  personal 
piety  of  these  rebellious  lords  was  infinitesimal  ;  but  they 
had  an  enormous  appreciation  of  Henry  YIII.'s  plunder  of 
the  monasteries  and  division  of  the  church  lands  among 
the  nobles,  and  desired  to  see  Scotland  submitted  to  the 
same  regimen  —  they,  of  course,  becoming  ardent  Re- 
formers. 

In  view  of  the  picturesque  statement  that  IMary  Stuart 
went  to  Scotland  with  a  "  resolution  as  fixed  as  the  stars  to 
trample  down  the  Reformation,"  her  first  public  acts  are  of 
great  interest.  Mr.  Froude  states  them  so  imperfectly  (vii. 
374)  that  they  make  but  slight  impression.  The  friends 
of  her  mother  and  the  Catholic  nobles  expected  to  be 
called  into  her  councils.  Instead  of  them,  "  to  the  surprise 
of  all  men,"  says  Mr.  Froude,  she  selected  the  Lord  James 


MARY  STUART  AND  JOHN  KNOX. 


43 


(lier  half-brother)  and  Maitland  as  her  chief  ministers,  with 
a  large  majority  of  Protestant  lords  in  her  council.  She 
threw  herself  upon  tlie  loyalty  of  her  people,  and  issued  a 
proclamation  forbidding  any  attempt  to  interfere  with  the 
Protestant  religion  which  she  found  established  in  her 
realm.  She  did  not  plead,  as  is  stated,  that  she  might 
have  her  own  service  in  the  royal  chapel,  but  claimed  it  as 
a  right  expressly  guaranteed.  "  The  Lord  Lindsay  might 
croak  out  texts  that  the  idolater  should  die  the  death." 
(vii.  375.) 

That  was  a  truly  energetic  "  croak  "  !  Listen  to  it  (not 
in  Froude).  When  service  in  the  Queen's  chapel  was  about 
to  begin,  Lindsay,  clad  in  full  armor  and  brandishing  his 
sword,  rushed  forward  shouting,  "  The  idolater  priest  shall 
die  the  death  !  "  The  almoner,  fortunately  for  himself, 
heard  the  "  croak,"  took  refuge,  and  after  the  service  was 
protected  to  his  home  by  two  lords  ;  "  and  then,"  says  Knox, 
"  the  godly  departed  with  great  grief  of  heart." 

The  interview  between  the  young  Queen  and  John  Knox 
is  narrated  by  Mr.  Froude  in  such  a  manner  as  to  tone 
down  the  coarseness  of  Knox's  conduct,  and  lessen  the 
brilliancy  of  the  dialectic  victory  of  the  young  Scotch  girl 
over  the  old  priest  and  minister.  She  first  inquired  about 
his  "  Blast  against  the  Regiment  of  Women,"  in  which  he 
declares,  — 

"  This  monstriferous  empire  of  women,  among  all  the  enormi- 
ties that  do  this  day  abound  upon  the  face  of  the  whole  earth, 
is  most  detestable  and  damnable.  Even  men  subject  to  the 
counsel  or  empire  of  their  wives  are  unworthy  of  all  public 
office." 

Mr.  Froude  describes  Knox  as  saying,  "  Daniel  and  St. 
Paul."  He  ought  to  know  that  a  Scotch  Puritan  could 
not  have  said  Saint  Paul.  "  Daniel  and  St.  Paul  were  not 
of  the  religion  of  Nebuchadnezzar  and  Nero."  (vii.  376.) 
Incorrect.  Knox  having  first  modestly  likened  himself 
unto  Plato,  thus  states  his  own  language :  "  I  shall  be  alse 


44 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


weall  content  to  lyve  under  your  grace  as  Paull  was  to 
lyve  under  Nero."  It  is  hard  to  say  which  is  greater,  the 
man's  vanity  in  comparing  himself  to  St.  Paul,  or  his  in- 
tolerable insolence  in  likening,  to  her  face,  the  young  Queen 
to  the  bloodiest  of  all  Roman  tyrants.  William  Cobbett, 
a  writer  of  sturdy  and  unadulterated  English,  in  referring 
to  some  such  performance  as  this  on  the  part  of  Knox, 
calls  him  "  the  Ruffian  of  the  Reformation."  We  strongly 
suspect,  though,  that  Knox  did  not  use  language  so  grossly 
offensive,  although  Mr.  Burton  refers  to  the  "  relentless 
bigotry  of  the  narrator."  (iv.  180.)  His  account  of  the 
interview  was  written  years  afterward.  He  was  self- 
complacent  and  boastful,  and  in  other  places  says  that  he 
caused  the  Queen  to  weep  so  bitterly  that  a  page  could 
scarce  get  her  enough  handkerchiefs  to  dry  her  eyes.  Ran- 
dolph might  well  write  to  Cecil,  "  She  is  patient  to  bear, 
and  beareth  nuich  ; "  and  Lethington  might  truthfully  de- 
clare, "  Surely,  in  her  comporting  with  him,  she  doth  declare 
a  wisdom  far  exceeding  her  years."  Before  Mary,  Knox 
claimed  that  Daniel  and  his  fellows,  although  subjects  to 
Nebuchadnezzar  and  to  Darius,  would  not  yet  be  of  the  re- 
ligion of  the  one  nor  the  other.  Mary  was  ready  with  her 
answer,  and  retorted,  "  Yea  ;  but  none  of  these  men  raised 
the  sword  against  their  princes."  Mr.  Froude,  of  course, 
reports  this  reply  in  such  a  manner  as  to  spoil  it ;  adding, 
But  Knox  answered  merely  that  '  God  had  not  given  them 
the  power.' "  Not  so ;  for  Knox  strove  by  logical  play,  which 
he  himself  records,  to  show  that  resistance  and  non-com- 
pliance were  one  and  the  same  thing.  "  Throughout  the 
whole  dialogue,"  says  Burton,  "  he  does  not  yield  the 
faintest  shred  of  liberty  of  conscience."  But  Mary  kept 
him  to  his  text,  repeating,  "  But  yet  they  resisted  not  with 
the  sword."  And  then,  this  young  woman,  who,  we  are  as- 
siu'ed,  came  to  Scotland  v/ith  "  spells  to  weave  conspira- 
cies," "to  control  herself  and  to  hide  her  purpose,"  bursts 
into  tears  and  blunderingly  tells  Knox  that  she  believed 
"  the  Church  of  Rome  was  the  true  Church  of  God." 


RELIGIOUS  TOLERATION. 


45 


All  interview  between  the  Queen  and  Knox  in  December, 
1562,  in  which  Mr.  Fioude  describes  Knox's  rudeness  as 
"  sound  northern  courtesy  "  (vii.  543),  is  passed  over  by  him  * 
with  commendable  rapidity.    And  of  yet  another  inter- 
view he  says  not  a  word.    We  will  rehite  it. 

Under  the  statute  of  1560  proceedings  were  taken  in 
1563  against  Mary's  subjects  in  the  west  of  Scotland  for 
attending  mass. 

The  wilds  of  Ayrshire,  in  later  years  the  resort  of  per- 
secuted Presbyterians,  were  the  resort  of  persecuted  Cath- 
olics. "  On  the  bleak  moorlands  or  beneath  the  shelter  of 
some  friendly  roof,"  says  Mr.  Hosack,^  "they  worshipped 
in  secret  according  to  the  faith  of  their  fathers."  Zealous 
Reformers  waited  not  for  form  of  law  to  attack  and  disperse 
the  "  idolaters,"  when  they  found  them  thus  engaged. 
Mary  remonstrated  with  Knox  against  these  lawless  pro- 
ceedings, and  argued  for  freedom  of  worship,  or,  as  Knox 
himself  states  it,  "  no  to  pitt  haunds  to  punish  ony  man  for 
using  himsel  in  his  religion  as  he  pleases."  But  the  Scotch 
Reformer  applauded  the  outrage,  and  even  asserted  that 
private  individuals  might  even  "  slay  with  their  own  hands 
idolaters  and  enemies  of  the  true  religion,"  quoting  Scrip- 
ture to  prove  his  assertions.^    Shortly  afterward  forty-eight 

1  Mary  Queen  of  Scots  and  her  Accusers.  Embracing  a  narrative  of 
events  from  the  death  of  James  V.,  in  1542,  until  the  death  of  the  Regent 
Murray,  in  1570.  By  John  Hosack,  Barrister-at-law.  An  admirable  work 
in  every  respect.  No  more  valuable  contribution  to  the  history  of  Mary 
Stuart  and  her  period  has  been  made.  The  author,  a  native  Scot,  is  en- 
tirely at  home  in  the  customs,  localities,  laws,  and  history  of  his  country, 
and  throws  light  on  many  interesting  points  heretofore  left  in  obscurity  by 
English  historians.  He  has  also  discovered  several  valuable  original  doc- 
uments, now  for  the  first  time  published.  The  work  is  written  in  a  tone  of 
calm  legal  discussion,  and  with  historical  dignity.  Its  important  aid  in  the 
preparation  of  this  book  is  hereby  cheerfully  acknowledged. 

^  He  had  previously  denounced  his  sovereign  from  the  pulpit  as  an  in- 
corrigible idolatress,  and  an  enemy  whose  death  would  be  a  public  bless- 
ing. Randolph  writes  to  Cecil,  February,  15G4,  "  They  pray  that  God  will 
either  turn  her  lieart  or  send  her  a  short  life;  "  adding,  "  Of  what  charity 
or  spirit  this  proceedcth,  I  leave  to  be  discussed  by  the  great  divines." 


46 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


Catholics  were  arraigned  before  the  High  Court  of  Jus- 
ticiary for  assisting  at  mass,  and  punished  by  imprison- 
ment. 

At  page  384  (vii.)  we  are  told  by  Mr.  Froude  that  the 
Protestant  mob  drove  the  priest  from  the  altar  (royal 
chapel),  "  with  broken  head  and  bloody  ears ; "  and  at  page 
418,  that  "  the  measure  of  virtue  in  the  Scotch  ministers 
was  the  audacity  with  which  they  would  reproach  the 
Queen."  "  Maitland  protested  that  theirs  was  not  language 
for  subjects  to  use  to  their  sovereign,"  and  there  really  ap- 
pears to  be  something  in  the  suggestion  ;  but  Mr.  Froude 
is  of  the  opinion  that  "  essentially,  after  all,  Knox  was 
right,"  ^  clinching  it  with  —  "  He  suspected  that  Mary 
Stuart  meant  mischief  to  the  Reformation,  and  she  did 
mean  mischief."  And  this  is  the  key  to  Mr.  Froude's 
main  argument  throughout  this  history.  "Whoever  and 
whatever  favors  the  Reformation  is  essentially  good  ;  who- 
ever and  whatever  opposes  it  is  essentially  vile.  And  the 
end  (the  Reformation)  justifies  the  means. 

Far  be  it  from  us  to  gainsay  the  perfect  propriety  of  an 
occasional  supply  of  sacerdotal  broken  heads  and  bloody 
ears,  if  a  Protestant  mob  sees  fit  to  fancy  such  an  amuse- 
ment ;  or  to  question  the  measure  of  virtue  in  the  Scotch 
ministers  ;  or  to  approve  of  the  absurd  protest  of  Mait- 
land ;  or,  least  of  all,  not  swiftly  to  recognize  that  "  essen- 
tially "  Knox  was  right.  But  we  really  must  be  excused 
for  venturing  to  suggest  —  merely  to  suggest  —  that,  in  the 
first  place,  if  we  assume  such  a  line  of  argument,  we  de- 
prive ourselves  of  weapons  wherewith  to  assail  the  cruel- 
ties of  such  men  as  Alva  and  Philip  of  Spain.  Surely, 
the  right  does  not  essentially  go  with  the  power  to  perse- 
cute !  And  in  the  second  place,  that  this  was  rather 
rough  treatment  for  a  young  and  inexperienced  girl,  against 

1  He  is  elsewhere  (v.  440)  of  the  ophiion  that  "  Knox  was  not  always 
just,"  and  instances  his  outrageous  falsehoods  concerning  Gardiner  and 
the  Marquis  of  Winchester. 


LESSON  IN  HISTORICAL  WRITING. 


47 


whom  thus  far  nothing  has  been  shown.  But  here,  confi- 
dently met  with  Harlot  of  Babylon,"  we  are  again  silenced. 
In  his  sermons,  Knox  openly  denounced  Mary,  not  only 
as  an  incorrigible  idolatress,  but  as  an  enemy  whose  death 
would  be  a  public  boon.  In  equally  savage  style  he  fulmi- 
nated against  the  amusements  of  the  court,  and  dwelt 
especially  on  the  deadly  sin  of  dancing.  And  yet  Knox  — 
we  nmst  in  candor  admit  it  —  was  not  totally  indifferent  to 
some  social  amenities,  for  he  was  then  paying  his  addresses 
to  a  young  girl  of  sixteen,  whom  he  afterward  married. 

Maitland  absurdly  hinted  to  Knox  that  if  he  had  a 
grievance  he  should  complain  of  it  modestly,  and  was  very 
properly  hooted  at  by  Knox  in  reply.  And  thereupon 
comes  a  fine  passage  admirably  exemplifying  the  psycho- 
logical treatment  of  history  (vii.  419)  :  — 

"  Could  she  but  secure  first  the  object  on  which  her  heart  was 
fixed,  she  could  indemnify  herself  afterward  at  her  leisure.  The 
preachers  might  rail,  the  fierce  lords  might  conspire  ;  a  little 
danger  gave  piquancy  to  Ufe,  and  the  air-drawn  crowns  which 
floated  before  her  imagination  would  pay  for  it  all." 

We  do  not  know  how  this  may  affect  other  people,  but 
"  air-drawn  crowns  "  did  the  business  for  us,  and  we  pro- 
ceed to  make  it  the  text  for  a  lesson  in  historical  writing. 

Mr.  Froude  may  or  may  not  have  transferred  the  con- 
tempt and  hatred  of  France  of  the  sixteenth  century, 
which  throughout  his  book  he  loses  no  opportunity  of 
manifesting,  to  France  of  the  nineteenth  century ;  but  we 
venture  to  suggest  to  him  that  he  can  find  across  the 
channel  models  and  principles  of  historical  treatment 
which  he  might  study  with  signal  profit.  Specially  would 
we  commend  to  his  lection  and  serious  perpension  the  fol- 
lowing pithy  passage  from  the  very  latest  published  volume 
of  French  history.  We  refer  to  Lanfrey's  "  Histoire  de  Na- 
poleon I."  The  author  describes  the  meeting  of  Napoleon 
and  Alexander  at  Tilsit,  and,  referring  to  the  absurd  at- 
tempt made  by  some  writers  to  explain  the  motives  which 


48 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


actuated  the  French  and  Russian  emperors  at  their  private 
interview  on  the  Niemen,  makes  this  sensible  reflection : 

"  II  est  toujours  dangereux  et  souvent  pueril  de  vouloir 
interpreter  les  sentiments  secrets  des  personnages  histo- 
riques."^  Our  English  historian's  attention  to  this  teach- 
ing would  rapidly  suppress  "  air-drawn  crowns  "  and  such 
like  trashy  stage  properties,  so  freely  used  by  him  for  dra- 
matic effect. 

On  Mary's  arrival  in  Scotland,  every  one  was  surprised 
that  she  should  select  for  her  chief  state  councilor  her 
half-brother,  the  Lord  James,  instead  of  the  Earl  of 
Huntly.  No  one  knew  that  Mary  had  been  craftily  per- 
suaded by  James  that  Huntly  was  not  loyal.  The  plan  of 
her  brother  was  as  wicked  as  it  was  deep.  It  was  at  once 
to  deprive  Mary  of  a  loyal  adviser  and  a  powerful  friend, 
and  to  raise  his  own  fortunes  on  Huntly's  ruin.  It  is  curi- 
ous to  see  how  all  this  affair  is  ingeniously  misrepresented 
by  Mr.  Froude.  Yielding  to  James's  solicitations,  begun 
years  before,  Mary,  after  creating  him  Earl  of  Mar,  created 
him  Earl  of  Murray.  But  this  latter  title  he  did  not  wish 
to  assert  until  he  could  obtain  the  lands  appertaining  to 
the  title,  which  he  had  procured  while  living  in  ostensible 
friendship  with  the  man  he  had  doomed  to  ruin.  The 
lands  were  in  Huntly's  possession,  and  Murray  made  up  his 
mind  to  have  them.  "  But  Huntly,"  says  Mr.  Froude, 
"  had  refused  to  part  with  them."  Astounding !  Refuse  to 
part  with  what  was  his  own  ?  Who  was  Huntly  ?  He 
was  earl  chancellor  of  the  kingdom,  a  man  aged  fifty-two,  a 
powerful  Catholic  nobleman,  with  no  stain  on  his  escutch- 
eon who  could  bring  twenty  thousand  spears  into  the 
field.  He  had  done  good  service  for  Mary's  mother 
against  the  English.  English  gold  had  not  stained  his 
palm.    He  was  a  man  marked  for  saying  that  he  liked  not 

1  "  The  attempt  to  make  one's  self  the  interpreter  of  the  secret  senti- 
ments of  historical  personages  is  always  dangerous  and  frequently  ridicu- 
lous." —  Lanfrey,  vol.  iv.  403,  Paris,  1870. 


THE  EARL  OF  HUNTLY. 


49 


the  "  manner  of  Henry  VlII.'s  wooing."  He  had  wanted 
Mary  to  land  at  Aberdeen,  was  at  the  head  of  the  loyal 
party  on  Mary's  arrival,  and  had  sought  to  warn  her  of  her 
brother's  craft  and  ambition.  Mr.  Froude  thus  describes 
him  (vii.  454)  :  — 

"  Of  all  the  reactionary  noblemen  in  Scotland  the  most  power- 
ful and  dangerous  i  was  notoriously  the  Earl  of  Huntly.  It  was 
Huntly  who  had  proposed  the  landing  at  Aberdeen.  In  his  own 
house  the  chief  of  the  house  of  Gordon  had  never  so  much  as 
affected  to  comply  with  the  change  of  religion,"  etc. 

What  depravity !  Would  not  change  his  religion,  nor 
even  have  the  decency  to  affect  to  comply  !  Positively  an 
atrocious  character !  It  is  evident  that  the  lands  of  such  a 
wretch  as  Huntly  ought  to  be  given  to  one  so  "  God-fear- 
ing "  as  Murray.  "  A  number  of  causes  combined  at  this 
moment  to  draw  attention  to  Huntly."  But,  all  counted, 
the  number  is  just  two  —  one  of  them  utterly  frivolous, 
and  the  other,  "  he  had  refused  to  give  up  the  lands." 
Mr.  Froude  is  now  candid,  and  tells  us  that  Murray  "  re- 
solved to  anticipate  attack  (none  was  dreamed  of),  to 
carry  the  Queen  with  him  to  visit  the  recusant  lord  in  his 
own  stronghold,  and  either  to  drive  him  into  a  premature 
rebellion  or  force  him  to  submit  to  the  existing  govern- 
ment." 

"  Murray's  reasons  for  such  a  step,"  continues  Mr. 
Froude,  "are  intelligible."  Perfectly.  "It  is  less  easy," 
he  continues,  "  to  understand  why  Mary  Stuart  consented 
to  it."  And  then  Mr.  Froude  proceeds  to  wonder  over  it 
with  John  Knox's  guesses,  and  his  own  "  if,"  "  perhaps," 
and  "  may  be."  Less  easy,  indeed  !  It  is  utterly  impossi- 
ble, unless  one  consents  to  look  at  Mary  Stuart  as  she  was 
—  a  young  woman  easily  influenced  through  her  affections, 
and  with  a  sincere  sisterly  attachment  for  the  man  in 

1  Mr.  Froude,  by  "  reactionary,"  means  that  he  was  not  a  disciple  of 
John  Knox  ;  by  "  dangerous,"  that  he  was  a  man  who  would  defend  his 
religion. 

4 


50 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


whom  she  failed  to  recognize  her  worst  enemy.  Difficult 
indeed  to  understand  the  suicidal  measure  of  ruinins:  the 
most  powerful  Catholic  nobleman  in  Scotland,  and 
strengthening  the  hands  of  the  most  powerful  Protestant 
leader. 

Mr.  Burton,  too,  tells  us  with  a  grave  face,  "  that  the 
Queen  should  have  dealt  so  hardly  with  Huntly  has  been 
felt  as  one  of  the  mysteries  of  history."  Anything  which, 
properly  explained,  puts  Mary  Stuart  in  a  true  light,  is  to 
Mr.  Burton  "mysterious,"  while  everything  stated  to  her 
disadvantage  is  a  matter  so  clear  as  to  admit  of  no  discus- 
sion. 

We  leave  these  historians  to  speculate  on  the  malicious 
motive  Mary  Stuart  must  have  had  for  thus  lopping  off  her 
right  hand,  a  loyal  subject,  and  true  friend,  whose  services 
would  have  been  invaluable  in  the  calamities  soon  to  come 
upon  her. 

"  Huntly's  family,"  says  Mr.  Froude,  "  affirmed  that  the 
trouble  which  happened  to  the  Gordons  was  for  the  sincere 
and  loyal  affection  which  they  had  to  the  Queen's  preserva- 
tion."   (vii.  456.)    And  they  were  right. 

Murray  now  managed  to  draw  the  Queen  and  her  attend- 
ants over  moor  and  mountain  two  hundred  and  fifty  miles 
to  Tarnway,  within  the  lands  of  the  earldom  of  Murray. 
She  was  entirely  guided  by  him,  and  he  used  her  authority 
to  compass  his  personal  ends  and  weaken  her  throne. 

Alexander  Gordon  at  first  refused  to  open  the  gates  of 
Inverness  Castle  to  the  Queen,  but  complied  the  next  day, 
on  the  order  of  Huntly.  Murray  had  Gordon  immediately 
hung,  and  his  head  set  on  the  castle  wall.  Mr.  Froude 
describes  this  brutal  murder  as  "  strangling  a  wolf-cub  in 
the  heart  of  the  den  "  (vii.  457),  all  that  Murray  does 
being  of  course  lovely.  Mary  was  now  surrounded  by 
Murray  and  his  friends,  who  poisoned  her  mind  against 
the  Huntlys  with  stories  that  the  earl  meant  to  force  her 
into  a  marriage  with  his  son,  and  had  other  designs  against 


THE  EARL  OF  HUNTLY. 


51 


her  person  and  royal  authority  ;  and  Mary  believed  them. 
"  WhereuiDon,"  writes  Randolph  to  Cecil, — for  Murray 
had  brought  his  English  friend,  Elizabeth's  servant,  along 
with  him, —  "  whereupon  there  was  good  pastime." 

Truly  most  excellent  pastime  for  Murray,  at  one  stroke 
to  destroy  his  adversary,  enrich  himself,  and  .undermine 
his  sister's  throne.  The  passage  is  highly  characteristic 
of  Randolph,  in  the  whole  of  whose  correspondence  there 
is  not  a  trait  of  manly  straightforwardness  or  elevated 
sentiment. 

Huntly  yielded  all  that  was  demanded  'of  him.  His 
castles  and  houses  were  seized,  plundered,  stripped,  and 
he  was  a  ruined  man.  Lady  Huntly  spoke  sad  truth  when, 
leading  Murray's  messenger  into  the  ciiapel  of  the  house, 
she  said  to  him  before  the  altar,  "  Good  friend,  you  see 
here  the  envy  tlrat  is  borne  unto  my  husband  ;  would  he 
have  forsaken  God  and  his  religion,  as  those  that  are  now 
about  the  Queen,  my  husband  would  never  have  been  put 
as  he  now  is."  (vii.  458.)  Mr.  Froude  reports  this  inci- 
dent, and  very  properly  spoils  its  effect  by  the  statement 
that  Lady  Huntly  was  "  reported  by  the  Protestants  to  be 
a  witch."    Huntly  was  driven  to  take  up  arms. 

"  Swift  as  lightning,"  says  Mr.  Froude,  with  yellow-cover 
tinge  of  phrase,  "  Murray  was  on  his  track."  And  now 
"  swift  as  lightning  "  —  sure  sign  of  mischief  meant  —  the 
historian  moves  on  with  his  narrative,  omitting  essential 
facts,  but  not  omitting  a  characteristic  piece  of  handiwork. 
News  came  from  the  south  that  Bothwell  had  escaped  out 
of  Edinburgh  Castle ;  "  not,"  glides  in  our  philosophic  his- 
torian, —  "  not,  it  was  supposed,  without  the  Queen's  knowl- 
edge." (vii.  459.)  After  a  wonderful  victory  of  his  two 
thousand  men  over  Huntly's  five  hundred,  —  a  mere  slaugh- 
ter, —  Murray  brought  the  Queen  certain  letters  of  the  Earl 
of  Sutherland,  found,  he  said,  in  the  pockets  of  the  dead 
Earl  of  Huntly,  and  showing  treasonable  correspondence. 
They  were  forgeries;  but  they  answered  his  purpose. 


52 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


"  Lord  John  (Huntly's  son),  after  a  full  confession,  was 
beheaded  in  the  market-place  at  Aberdeen."  (vii.  459.) 
There  was  no  confession  but  that  which  Murray  told  the 
Queen  he  made,  and  Mr.  Froude  forgets  to  tell  us  that 
Murray  caused  young  Gordon's  scaffold  to  be  erected  in 
front  of  the  Queen's  lodging,  and  had  her  placed  in  a  chair 
of  state  at  an  open  window,  deluding  her  with  some  spe- 
cious reason  as  to  the  necessity  of  her  presence. 

When  the  noble  young  man  was  brought  out  to  die,  Mary 
burst  into  a  flood  of  tears  ;  and  when  the  headsman  did 
his  work,  she  swooned  and  was  borne  off  insensible.  These 
cruel  scenes  deeply  shocked  her  gentle  nature.  All  re- 
marked her  sadness  ;  and  we  learn  from  Knox :  "  For  many 
days  she  bare  no  better  countenance,  whereby  it  might  have 
been  evidently  espied  that  she  rejoiced  not  greatly  at  the 
success  of  the  matter."  Here  is  Mr.  Froude's  short  ver- 
sion of  these  facts:  "  Her  brother  .read  her  a  cruel  lesson 
by  compelling  her  to  be  present  at  the  execution."  Mr. 
Froude  also  forgets  to  tell  us  that  Murray  had  six  gentle- 
men of  the  house  of  Gordon  hung  at  Aberdeen  on  the 
same  day.  But  a  few  pages  further  on,  he  has  the  incredi- 
ble coolness  to  tell  us  of  a  prize  that  Mary  "  trusted  to  have 
purchased  with  Huntly's  blood !  "  (vii.  463.)  After  all,  you 
thus  perceive  that  it  was  not  Murray,  but  Mary,  who  wrought 
all  this  ruin ;  and  to  show  more  clearly  how  deep  must  be 
her  guilt  in  thus  allowing  herself  to  be  duped  and  injured, 
Mr.  Froude  closes  his  chapter  by  quoting  John  Knox  to 
prove  that  "  she  (Mary)  neither  did  or  would  have  forever 
one  good  thought  of  God  or  of  his  true  religion." 

Throughout  all  this  portion  of  his  history,  Mr.  Froude 
labors  to  represent  Elizabeth  as  the  soul  of  honor  and  del- 
icacy, and  a  much-injured  woman,  in  treaty  with  the  young 
Scotch  Queen,  whose  every  word  and  movement  is  tor- 
tuous and  hypocritical.  Meanwhile  Elizabeth's  constant 
violation  of  the  commonest  honesty  is  treated  euphuist- 
^cally.  thus :  "  Truth  and  right  in  her  mind  were  never 


MARY  STUART'S  POSITION. 


53 


wholly  separated  from  advantage."  "  She  seemed  more 
careful  of  her  own  interests  than  of  the  interests  of  relig- 
ion." "  She  drove  hard  bargains,  and  occasionally  over- 
reached herself  by  excess  of  shrewdness." 

During  all  this  time,  in  all  matters  save  her  own  personal 
conduct  and  integrity,  Mary  Stuart,  youthful  and  inex- 
perienced, is  a  mere  puppet  in  the  hands  of  Murray,  in 
whom  —  for  her  great  calamity  —  she  confided  with  all  the 
depth  of  her  noble  nature  and  her  sisterly  affection.  We 
have  seen  that  when  in  France  she  was  influenced  by  the 
Guises.  This  was  so  well  understood  in  England,  that  as 
late  as  June,  1562,  Sir  Nicholas  Bacon,  in  the  English  Privy 
Council,  "  assumed  as  certain  that  Mary  Stuart  was  under 
the  direction  of  the  House  of  Guise."  So  says  Mr.  Froude, 
vii.  421.  But  our  historian's  devices  are  of  no  avail  in  so 
plain  a  case  as  that  of  the  Earl  of  Huntly,  and  the  truth 
comes  out,  when  by  deception  and  falsehood  Murray  pre- 
vails upon  his  sister  to  commit  an  act  which,  at  once  a 
stain  upon  her  name  as  a  sovereign  and  a  woman,  was  also 
a  death  wound  to  her  power. 


CHAPTER  VI. 


"  Mary  Stuart  was  an  admirable  actress;  rarely,  perhaps,  on  the  world's 
stage  has  there  been  a  more  skilful  player."  —  Froude's  History  of  Eng- 
land, viii.  367. 

In  all  statements  concerning  Mary  Stuart  there  is  a 
general  absence  of  harmony  between  Mr.  Froude's  texts 
and  the  authorities  cited  by  him  in  their  support. 

Thus  we  read  (vii.  542)  :  — 

"  Knox  rose  in  the  pulpit  at  St.  Giles's  and  told  them  all  that 
whenever  they,  j)rofessing  the  Lord  Jesus,  consented  that  a  Pa- 
pist should  be  head  of  their  sovereign,  they  did  as  far  as  in  them 
lay  to  banish  Christ  from  the  realm;  they  would  bring  God's 
vengeance  on  their  country,  a  plague  on  themselves,  and  per- 
chance small  comfort  to  their  sovereign." 

But  Knox  himself  gives  the  passage  thus :  speaking  of 
the  Queen's  marriage :  — 

"Dukes,  brethren,  to  emperors  and  kings,  strive  all  for  the 
best  game ;  but  this,  my  lords,  will  I  say,  note  the  day  and  bear 
witness,  after  whensoever  the  nobility  of  Scotland,  professing 
the  Lord  Jesus,  consents  that  one  infidel  —  and  all  Papists  are 
infidels  —  shall  be  head  to  your  Sovereign,  ye  do  so  far  in  ye 
lieth  to  banish  Jesus  Christ  from  this  realm,"  etc. 

Knox  also  records  what  the  historian  neglects  to  tell  us, 
that  his  language  and  manner  were  "  deemed  intolerable. 
Papists  and  Protestants  were  both  offended,  yea,  his  most 
familiars  disclaimed  him  for  that  speaking."  Suppressing 
all  this,  and  putting  Mary  forward  as  alone  offended,  it  is 
represented  that  "  she  gave  her  anger  its  course."  ^    It  is 

1  Robertson  thus  speaks  of  Mary  at  this  time:  "  Her  gentle  administra- 
tion of  two  years  had  secured  the  hearts  of  her  subjects."  "  She  was  the 
most  amiable  woman  of  the  age." 


MARY  STUART  AND  JOHN  KNOX. 


55 


not  enough  that  IMary's  enemy,  Knox,  has  the  relation  of 
all  this  matter  to  himself  in  his  account  of  the  interview, 
written  years  afterward  when  she  was  a  prisoner  at  Loch- 
leven,  Mr.  Froude  gives  his  own  version  thus :  — 

"  In  imagination  Queen  of  Scotland,  England,  Ireland,  Spain, 
Flanders,  Naples,  and  the  Indies  —  in  the  full  tide  of  hope,  and 
with  the  prize  almost  in  her  hands,  she  was  in  no  humor  to  let  a 
heretic  preacher  step  between  her  and  the  soaring  flights  of  her 
ambition.  She  sent  for  Knox,  and,  her  voice  shaking  between 
tears  and  passion,  she  said  "  — 

Now  Knox  knew  what  the  Queen  said  to  him,  but  did 
not  know  what  was  passing  in  her  mind.  The  living  actors 
in  the  touching  drama  of  Mary  Stuart's  life  went  groping 
about  in  the  comparative  darkness  of  events  that  took 
place  before  their  very  eyes.  The  power  of  reading  her 
thoujjhts  was  reserved  for  a  later  ao^e. 

So  far  as  Knox  is  concerned,  we  of  course  fully  recognize 
the  fact  that  a  Catholic  sovereign  could  not  possibly  have 
any  rights  which  a  Protestant  subject  was  bound  to  re- 
spect, and  that  when  he  insulted  her  in  private  and  held 
her  up  to  scorn  in  public,^  it  was  merely  what  Mr.  Froude 
styles  his  "  sound  northern  courtesy  !  " 

When  Knox  says  Mary  was  "  in  a  vehement  fume,"  we 
object  to  this  rendition,  —  "  her  voice  shaking  between  tears 
and  passion  ;  "  and  when  we  hear  from  that  man  of  God 
that  the  Queen  sobbed  so  violently,  that  "  scarcely  could 
her  chalmer  boy  get  napkins  to  hold  her  eyes  dry  for  the 
tears ;  and  the  owling,  besides  womanly  weeping,  stayed  her 
speech,"  we  pronounce  the  "  admirable  actress  "  a  wretched 
failure. 

Is  this  the  woman  brought  to  Scotland  prepared,  "  when 
scarcely  more  than  a  girl,"  with  consummate  art  and  hy- 

1  "  Regardless  of  the  distinctions  of  rank  or  character,  he  uttered  his  ad- 
monitions with  an  acrimony  and  vehemence  more  apt  to  irritate  than  re- 
claim. This  often  betrayed  him  into  indecent  and  undutiful  expressions 
with  respect  to  the  Queen's  person  and  conduct."  —  Robertson. 


56 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


pocrisy,  "  falsehood  and  deceit,"  "  to  weave  the  fibres  of  a 
conspiracy,"  "  prepared  to  wait,  to  control  herself,"  "  to  hide 
her  purpose  till  the  moment  came/'  "  with  a  purpose  fixed 
as  the  stars."  ? 

Is  this  the  finished  pupil  of  Catherine  de  Medicis,  the 
inscrutable  conspirator,  the  superior  of  Elizabeth  in  stony- 
hearted indifference  ?  She  blurts  out  to  Knox  that  the 
Church  of  Rome  is  the  true  Church  of  God,  and  when  her 
feelings  are  hurt  she  bursts  into  tears.  Candor  compels 
us  to  decide  that  this  leading  actress  is  a  decided  ^asco. 

One  would  think  it  no  very  difficult  task  for  a  man  of 
age  and  experience  to  see  through  an  impulsive  girl  of 
nineteen,  whose  face  mirrored  her  soul.  And  yet  we  are 
informed  triumphantly,  three  several  times,  that  "  Knox 
had  looked  Mary  through  and  through."  In  this  connec- 
tion we  have  one  of  our  historian's  best  efforts,  to  which 
we  ask  special  attention. 

In  introducing  Knox's  sermon  just  described,  our  his- 
torian represents  Knox  as  unsupported  by  the  Scotch  no- 
bles, Murray  in  particular  having  been  estranged  from  him 
through  Mary  Stuart's  cunning  wiles.  Mr.  Fronde's  ex- 
planation of  the  cause  of  the  coolness  and  estrangement 
between  Knox  and  Murray  is  commended  to  the  reader's 
serious  attention.    He  thus  states  it :  — 

"  Knox  had  labored  to  save  Murray  from  the  spell  which  his 
sister  had  flung  over  him ;  but  Murray  had  only  been  angry  at 
his  interference,  and,  ^  they  spake  not  familiarly  for  more  than  a 
year  and  a  half.'  "  1    (vii.  542.) 

Pray  notice  the  cause  of  this  estrangement.  It  is  very 
explicitly  stated.  Look  at  it.  This  innocent  Murray  is 
under  a  spell.  All  heart  himself,  he  saw  no  guile  in  his 
sister.    But  Knox  warned  him  against  the  sorceress,  Mur- 

1  Mr.  Froude's  reference  for  this  citation  is  Knox's  History  of  the  Reforma- 
Hon,  which  is  somewhat  too  general.  The  reader  is  advised  to  look  for  it  in 
vol.  ii.  p.  382. 


MURRAY  AND  KNOX.  67 

ray  resented  his  interference,  and  that  was  the  cause  of  the 
coolness  between  them. 

The  testimony  of  John  Knox  is  invoked  by  our  historian 
to  prove  these  statements.  On  tliis  point  there  can  be  no 
mistake,  and  we  now  pro^DOse  to  phice  John  Knox  on  the 
stand  and  with  his  eyes  to  look  Mr.  Froude  "  through  and 
through."  In  the  Parliament  of  1563,  Murray  had  the 
"  Act  of  Oblivion  "  passed,  in  which  he  managed  to  reserve 
for  himself  and  his  friends  the  power  to  say  who  should  or 
should  not  profit  by  its  provisions.  With  this  Act  he  was 
dangerous  to  all  who  opposed  him,  and  consequently  all- 
powerful.  Under  these  circumstances,  John  Knox  pressed 
Murray,  now  that  he  had  the  power,  to  establish  the  religion, 
namely,  pass  in  a  constitutional  manner  the  informal  Act  of 
1560,  and  legalize  the  confession  of  faith  as  the  doctrine 
of  the  Church  of  Scotland. 

Now  call  the  witness,  John  Knox  :  — 

"  But  the  erledom  of  Murray  needed  confirmation,  and  many 
things  were  to  be  ratified  that  concerned  the  help  of  friends  and 
servants  —  and  the  matter  fell  so  hole  hetwix  the  Erie  of  Murray 
and  John  Knox,  that  familiarlie  after  that  time  they  spack  nott  to- 
gether more  than  a  year  and  a  half"  l 

Thus,  if  we  may  believe  Knox  himself,  it  was  Murray's 
preference  for  his  own  "  singular  commoditie  "  over  the  in- 
terests of  the  kirk  of  God  which  caused  that  "  they  spake 
not  familiarly  together  for  more  than  a  year  and  a  half." 
Of  "  spell,"  "  enchantress,"  or  Mary  Stuart,  no  word. 

Mr.  Burton's  ("  History  of  Scotland,"  iv.  224)  version  of 
"  the  cause  of  the  coolness  "  runs  thus  :  — 

"  The  proceedings  of  this  Parliament  filled  up  the  cup  of  Knox's 
gathering  wrath  against  the  Protestant  lords,  on  their  lukewarm- 
ness  in  the  great  cause  and  over  anxiety  about  their  worldly 
interests.  He  signified  his  displeasure  on  the  occasion  by  solemnly 
breaking  loith  Murray. 

1  We  regret  that  we  have  not  room  for  the  short  discourse  Knox  made  to 
Murray  on  the  occasion  of  their  parting. 


58 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


"  It  is  very  significantly  suggested  in  Knox's  History  that  Mur- 
ray wanted  the  estates  and  honors  which  he  had  obtained  through 
the  ruin  of  the  Gordons  (HunthJ)  effectually  secured." 

Mr.  Burton  then  quotes  :  "  The  matter  fell  so  hot,"  etc., 
"  that  familiarly  after  that  time  they  spake  not  together  more 
than  a  year  and  a  half." 

Even  the  French  writer  Mignet  appears  to  understand 
John  Knox's  English  better  than  Mr.  Froude,  and  says 
Knox  accused  Murray  of  abandoning  God  for  his  worldly 
advantage.  Murray,  wounded  by  his  reproaches,  broke  with 
him.  Their  former  friendship  ceased,  and  for  eighteen 
months  they  scarcely  exchanged  a  word.^ 

In  looking  at  our  English  historian's  portraiture  of  the 
Scottish  Queen,  and  in  witnessing  his  efforts  to  paint  her  as 
"  sensual,"  the  reader  can  well  understand  how  desirable 
must  be  for  him  some  incident  in  her  career  which  might 
furnish  him  the  material  for  a  tableau  in  which  she  should 
be  made  to  figure  as  a  Cleopatra. 

As  such  an  incident  never  had  any  existence  in  Mary's 
life,  our  author  is  seriously  embarrassed ;  but  emerges  from 
his  trouble  with  a  noteworthy  effort.  Referring  to  the  in- 
terview with  Knox  at  which  she  wept  so  abundantly  that  a 
page  could  hardly  supply  her  with  napkins  to  dry  her  tears; 
Mr.  Froude  relates  that,  — 

"  Soon  after  this  conversation  Randolph  brought  Elizabeth's 
message.  In  his  account  of  the  interview  he  gives  a  noticeable 
sketch  of  Mary's  personal  habits.  Active  and  energetic  when  oc- 
casion required,  this  all-accomplished  woman  abandoned  herself 
to  intervals  of  graceful  self-indulgence.  Without  illness,  or  im- 
agination of  it,  she  would  lounge  for  days  in  bed,  rising  only  at 
night  for  dancing  or  music ;  and  there  she  rechned  with  some 
light  delicate  French  robe  carelessly  draped  about  her,  surrounded 
by  her  ladies,  her  council,  and  her  courtiers,  receiving  ambas- 
sadors and  transacting  business  of  state.  It  was  in  this  condition 
that  Randolph  found  her."    (viii.  544.) 


1  Mignet,  vol.  i.  p.  142. 


MARY  Stuart's  occupations. 


59 


Randolph's  dispatch  giving  this  very  "  noticeable  sketch  '* 
is  cited  thus  :  "  Eandolph  to  Cecil,  Sept.  4.  Scotch  MSS. 
Rolls  Housed 

There  is  no  such  sketch  or  description  in  the  dispatch.  The 
time  assigned  is  "soon  after  this  conversation  "  (with  Knox), 
which  was  in  the  spring  of  15G3.  September  4  is  not  "  soon 
after,"  "  Randolph  brought  Elizabeth's  message  "  signifies 
that  he  came  from  London,  and  this  could  not  have  occurred 
at  any  time  between  March  and  September.  Early  in  June 
the  young  Queen  made  her  arrangements  for  a  progress  in 
the  Highlands,  and  Randolph  then  took  his  farewell  audience, 
having  received  two  months'  leave  of  absence.  He  might 
have  left  on  the  loth,  but  he  would  not  go  until  he  saw 
Lethington,  and  Lethington  did  not  return  until  the  26th. 
We  know  that  he  was  in  London  August  20th,  for  on  that 
day  he  received  from  Elizabeth  a  memorial  of  certain  mat- 
ters "  written  in  the  first  person  as  he  would  speak  it  to 
the  Queen  of  Scotland." 

Returned  to  Edinburgh  in  the  beginning  of  September, 
Randolph  "  spoke  his  piece,"  and  on  the  4th  September 
reports  to  Cecil  that  he  had  a  dinner  with  the  nobles,  an 
honorable  reception  by  the  Queen,  who  frequently  inter- 
rupted his  address,  and  that  he  thought  the  Queen  "  more 
Spanish  than  Imperial ; "  hut  the  Cleopatra  sketch  is  absent. 

Since  attention  has  been  drawn  to  this  matter  of  Mary's 
"graceful  self-indulgence,"  we  have  thought  it  worth  while 
to  ascertain  from  their  own  testimony  what  really  were  the 
impressions  of  English  ambassadors  and  others  at  the 
court  of  Scotland,  as  to  Mary's  occupation  of  her  time. 

In  April,  1562,  Randolph  writes  to  Cecil :  "  She  readeth 
daily  after  dinner,  instructed  by  a  learned  man,  Mr.  Geo. 
Buchanan,  somewhat  in  Livy." 

A  few  months  earlier  Throckmorton  writes  :  "  The  next 
day  I  was  sent  for  into  the  council  chamber,  where  she 
herself  ordinarily  sitteth  the  most  part  of  her  time,  sewing 
some  work  or  other." 


60 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


March  8,  15G4,  Randolph  writes  Cecil :  "For  expedi- 
cion  of  poor  men's  causes  the  Queen  hath  ordered  three 
dayes  a  week,  augmenting  the  judged'  stipends  for  their 
attendance,  and  sitting  herself  for  more  equitie  oftentimes.'' 

Even  John  Knox  says  "  she  showed  a  becoming  gravity 
in  council." 

Sir  James  Melville  says,  —  and  he  wrote  this  long  after 
Mary's  dethronement,  —  "  She  behaved  herself  so  princely, 
so  honorably,  and  so  discreetly,  that  her  reputation  spread 
in  all  countries,  and  (she)  was  determined  and  inclined  so 
to  continue  in  that  kind  of  comeliness  unto  the  end  of  her 
life,  desiring  to  hold  none  in  her  company  but  such  as 
were  of  the  best  qualities  and  conversation,  abhorring  all 
vices  and  vicious  persons,  whether  they  were  men  or 
women." 

Malcolm  Laing,  in  insisting  upon  the  credibility  of  the 
depositions  of  Bothwell's  servants,  lays  great  stress  on  the 
fact  that  the  distinguished  legalist  and  incorruptible  judge, 
Sir  Thomas  Craig,  was  one  of  the  bench  of  judges  when 
they  were  tried  and  sentenced.  With  this  indorsement 
of  Sir  Thomas  Craig  by  an  enemy  of  Mary  Stuart,  his 
testimony  is  important.  He  speaks  from  personal  obser- 
vation:  "I  have  often  heard  the  most  serene  Princess, 
Mary  Queen  of  Scotland,  discourse  so  appositely  and 
rationally  in  all  affairs  which  were  brought  before  the 
Privy  Council,  that  she  was  admired  by  all ;  and  when 
most  of  the  councilors  were  silent,  being  astonished,  or 
straight  declared  themselves  to  be  of  her  opinion,  she 
rebuked  them  sharply,  and  exhorted  them  to  speak  freely, 
as  became  unprejudiced  councilors,  against  her  opinion, 
that  the  best  reasons  might  decide  their  determinations. 
And  truly  her  reasonings  were  so  strong  and  clear  that 
she  could  turn  their  hearts  to  what  side  she  pleased.  She 
had  not  studied  law;  yet  by  the  natural  light  of  her  judg- 
ment, when  she  reasoned  of  matters  of  equity  and  justice, 
she  ofttimes  had  the  advantage  of  the  ablest  lawyers.  Her 


HER  GRACEFUL  SELF-INDULGENCE. 


61 


Other  discourses  and  actions  were  suitable  to  her  great 
judgment.  As  for  her  liberality  and  other  virtues,  they 
were  well  known." 

INIiss  Strickland,  in  her  thorough  and  admirable  Life 
of  Mary,"  has  traced  her  almost  day  by  day  from  her  cra- 
dle to  her  grave,  and  in  speaking  of  her  life  at  the  period 
of  Mr.  Froude's  Randolph  dispatch,  says  that  there  is  noth- 
ing in  the  reports  of  any  of  the  ambassadors  resident  at 
the  court  of  Scotland  to  justify  the  belief  that  Mary  Stuart 
could  forget  the  dignity  of  a  queen,  or  the  decorum  of  a 
gentlewoman.  "  As  for  oaths  and  profane  or  vulgar  ex- 
pletives, in  mirth  or  in  anger,  such  as  were  familiar  as 
household  words  with  the  miglity  p]lizabeth,  nothing  of  the 
kind  has  ever  been  chronicled  as  defiling  the  lips  of  Mary 
Stuart." 

As  Mr.  Froude  may  have  made  a  mistake  in  citing  his 
Cleopatra  dispatch,  we  will  give  him  the  benefit  of  some 
subsequent  dispatches  of  Randolph,  who  made  another 
short  absence  from  Edinburgh  during  the  autumn  of  the 
same  year. 

On  his  return,  Randolph  could  not  at  first  see  the  Queen, 
who  was  ill.  He  so  informs  Cecil,  December  13  :  "  For  the 
space  of  two  months  this  Queen  hath  been  divers  times 
in  great  melancholies.  Her  grief  is  marvelous  secret. 
Many  times  she  weepeth  when  there  is  little  appearance 
of  occasion." 

This  we  presume  to  be  the  "  graceful  self-indulgence." 
Again,  Randolph  to  Cecil  December  21 :  "  Her  disease  — 
whereof  it  proceedeth  I  know  not  —  daily  increaseth.  Her 
pain  is  in  her  right  side.  Men  judge  it  to  proceed  of 
melancholy.  She  hath  taken  divers  medicines  of  late, 
but  findeth  herself  little  the  better."  And  it  is  from  such 
reports  as  these  that  Mr.  Froude  finds  that  Mary  was 
"  without  illness,  or  imagination  of  it !  " 


CHAPTER  VII. 


DAVID  RICCIO. 

"  C'etait  un  homme  adroit,  d'un  esprit  plus  cultivd  qu'on  ne  I'avait 
dans  cette  cour  un  peu  sauvage."  —  Mignet. 

The  introduction  of  Riccio  by  Mr.  Froude  (viii.  120)  is 
a  good  specimen  of  his  best  art.  There  is  an  accusation 
in  every  line,  an  insinuation  in  every  word ;  yet  when  he  is 
through,  the  reader  is  left  in  total  ignorance  of  the  Italian's 
real  position.  Mr.  Froude  calls  him  Ritzio,  which  is  not 
purism  but  a  piece  of  affectation.  The  name  has  hereto- 
fore been  written  Rizzio  and  Riccio.  Ritzio,  to  the  English 
eye,  it  is  true,  very  nearly  represents  the  Italian  pronunci- 
ation of  Rizzio.  The  man's  name  was  Riccio,  as  is  well 
determined  by  one  letter  of  his,  and  two  of  his  brother 
Joseph,  all  still  in  existence  and  perfectly  accessible.^ 

His  age,  variously  stated  from  thirty  to  forty,  is  never  put 
at  less  than  thirty.  Mr.  Froude  gives  no  figure,  and  calls 
him  "  the  youth  ; "  by  which  you  may,  if  you  choose,  under- 
stand eighteen  or  twenty.  His  real  employment  is  con- 
cealed, and  (viii.  247)  he  is  called  "  a  wandering  musician." 
Riccio  was  a  man  of  solid  acquirements,  able  and  accom- 

Mr.  Froude  might  have  more  successfully  and  usefully  distinguished 
himself  as  a  purist  by  lending  his  aid  to  bring  into  use  the  name  Moray, 
instead  of  its  vulgar  substitute  Murray,  by  which  he  designates  James 
Stewart,  Earl  of  Moray.  In  order  to  avoid  confusion,  we  follow  him;  and 
write  Murray  for  Moray.  The  question  as  to  this  name  is  thus  clearly  ex- 
plained in  Keith's  Affairs  of  Church  and  Staie  hi  Scotland:  "  Murra}--  was 
the  patronymic  or  family  name  of  four  noble  and  of  a  number  of  ancient 
and  distinguished  Scottish  families.  Moray  was  always  the  title  of  the 
Earldom,  as  it  has  invariably  been  of  the  County  of  Mora}'-  or  Elgin;  and 
the  Earls  of  Moray,  the  lineal  descendants  of  the  Kegent,  never  Avere  ad- 
dressed nor  signed  themselves  Murray.^^ 


DAVID  RICCIO. 


63 


plislied.  He  bad  served  several  distinguished  personages, 
ambassadors  and  others,  as  secretary,  and  was  intrusted 
with  the  preparation  of  their  most  important  dispatches 
"  in  more  elegant  Tuscan  than  they  could  themselves  com- 
mand." INIignet  may  well  credit  him  with  "  un  esprit  plus 
cultive  qu'on  ne  I'avait  dans  cette  cour  un  peu  sauvage." 
He  succeeded  to  the  post  formerly  held  by  Raulet,  —  that 
of  secretary  for  the  Queen's  French  correspondence,  — 
and  was  thoroughly  versed  in  the  languages  as  well  as  in 
the  troubled  politics  of  the  day.  He  was,  moreover,  de- 
votedly loyal,  and  inspired  Mary  with  entire  confidence  in 
his  integrity. 

"With  an  admirable  common  sense,  far  in  advance  of  her 
period,  she  asks  the  nobles  who  sought  his  dimissal  (Laba- 
nofF,  vol.  vii.  p.  297), "  if  they  are  to  monopolize  all  the  power 
in  the  state,  whether  they  inherit  the  virtues  of  their  ances- 
tors or  not  ?  "  and  with  a  liberality  far  in  advance  of  her 
age,  she  adds :  "  If  the  sovereign  finds  a  man  in  humble 
condition  and  poor  in  worldly  goods,  but  of  a  generous 
spirit  and  faithful  heart,  and  capable  of  serving  the  state, 
must  he  be  debarred  from  all  advancement  ?  "  Sir  Walter 
Scott  ("  History  of  Scotland  ")  says  that  a  person  like  him, 
"  skilled  in  languages  and  in  business,"  was  essential  to  the 
Queen,  and  adds,  "  No  such  agent  was  likely  to  be  found  in 
Scotland,  unless  she  had  chosen  a  Catholic  priest,  which 
would  have  given  more  offense  to  her  Protestant  subjects," 
etc. 

"  The  Queen,"  says  Knox,  "  usit  him  for  secretary  in 
things  that  appertainit  to  her  secret  affairs  in  France  and 
elsewhere." 

"That  he  was  old,  deformed,  and  strikingly  ugly,  has 
been  generally  accepted  by  historians,"  says  Burton. 

Having,  it  appears,  no  access  to  these  three  Scotch  his- 
torians, Mr.  Froude  is  thrown  on  his  own  resources,  and 
evolves,  "  He  became  a  favorite  of  Mary  —  he  was  an  ac- 
complished musician  ;  he  soothed  her  hours  of  solitude 
with  love  songs,"  etc. 


64 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


The  truth  is,  that,  as  Mignet  hints  but  fears  to  say 
plainly,  in  all  that  makes  the  scholar,  the  cultivated  gentle- 
man, and  the  man  of  honor,  the  Scotch  nobles  about  Mary 
were  far  the  inferiors  of  David  Riccio.  The  modern  sneer 
is  easy,  but  the  fact  remains  that  he  was  more  than  their 
peer.  The  stories  of  his  pride  and  arrogance  rest  solely  on 
the  authority  of  his  assassins  and  of  the  men  who  repeat 
their  stories. 

From  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  his  "  history,"  Mr. 
Froude  so  accustoms  his  readers  to  accept  testimony  which, 
on  the  plainest  rules  of  evidence,  would  be  thrust  out  of 
the  obscurest  rural  court,  that  they  are  never  safe  unless 
they  scrutinize  all  the  proof  he  offers.  As  to  Riccio's  con- 
duct, we  have  the  testimony  of  an  unbiased  witness,  — 
Melville,  a  stanch  Protestant  nobleman,  then  resident  at 
court.  In  his  "  Memoirs  "  he  makes  no  mention  whatever 
of  the  conduct  imputed  to  Riccio,  although  aware  of  the 
hatred  borne  him  by  the  nobles,  but  he  does  speak  in  the 
plainest  terms  of  their  insulting  and  brutal  behavior  to 
him.  "  It  is  easy  to  say  that  it  was  indiscreet  to  repose 
such  confidence  in  this  friendless  foreigner  :  it  is  less  easy 
to  point  out  among  her  turbulent  and  treacherous  nobles  a 
single  man  whom  she  could  trust."    (Hosack,  p.  122.) 

At  page  132,  vol.  viii.,  we  have  what  young,  lady  novel- 
readers  would  call  "  this  splendid  passage  :  "  — 

"  Suddenly,  unlocked  for  and  uninvited,  the  evil  spirit  of  the 
storm,  the  Earl  of  Botliwell,  reappeared  at  Mary's  court.  She 
disclaimed  all  share  in  his  return  ;  l  he  was^  still  attainted ;  yet 
there  he  stood  —  none  daring  to  lift  a  hand  against  him  —  proud, 
insolent,  and  dangerous." 

This  is  extremely  fine  writing,  and  the  passage  is  really 
dramatic,  but  without  a  word  of  truth  except  in  the  naked 
fact  that  Bothwell  returned  "  unlooked  for  and  uninvited." 
On  the  very  same  page  with  this  glittering  extract,  Mr. 
i  This  is  a  delicately  artistic  touch. 


THE  EARL  OF  BOTH  WELL.  65 

» 

Fronde  quotes  Randolph's  letter  to  Cecil,  March,  15,  15G5, 
but  totally  fails  to  see  in  it  these  words  :  — 

"  The  Queen  misliketh  Bothwcirs  coming  home,  and  has  sum- 
moned him  to  undergo  the  law  or  be  proclaimed  a  rebel.  He  is 
charged  to  have  spoken  dishonorably  of  the  Queen."  l 

Bothwell  was  not  at  court,  and  his  proud  insolent  atti- 
tude consisted  in  seeking  refuge  among  his  vassals  in 
Liddesdale. 

Leaving  his  "  evil  spirit  of  the  storm  "  to  fructify  in  the 
mind  of  an  imaginative  reader,  our  historian  abstains  from 
the  subject  for  twenty  pages,  and,  without  hint  of  Ran- 
dolph's information  that  the  Queen  had  already  summoned 
Bothwell  to  undergo  the  law,  states  the  matter  thus : 
"  The  Earl  of  Murray,  at  the  expense  of  forfeiting  the  last 
remains  of  his  influence  over  his  sister,  had  summoned 
Bothwell  to  answer  at  Edinburgh  a  charge  of  high  treason." 
All  this  is  ingenious,  —  the  concealment  as  to  who  or- 
dered the  trial,  —  the  pure  disinterestedness  of  Murray, 
and  the  ever  present  insinuation  against  Mary.  Bothwell 
came  to  Edinburgh,  brought  by  the  summons,  to  stand 
his  trial ;  but  on  the  approach  of  Murray  with  a  train  of 
5,000  armed  followers,  he  found,  he  said,  the  jury  entirely 
too  numerous,  and  fled,  sending  a  deputy  to  explain  his 
absence  and  "  his  willingness  to  meet  the  charge  if  pros- 
ecuted according  to  the  regular  forms  of  justice  without 
such  manifest  danger  to  h,is  life." 

Rather  lamely  concludes  Mr.  Froude :  "  Bothwell 
would  have  defied  him  had  he  dared  ;  but  Murray  ap- 
peared accompanied  by  Argyll  and  7,000  men  on  the  day 
fixed  for  the  trial;  and  the  Hepburn  was  once  more 
obliged  to  fly."    "  The  Hepburn  ! " 

As  usual,  our  historian  has  something  to  conceal.  Mur- 
ray's opposition  to  Mary's  marriage  with  Darnley  was  . 

1  Randolph  (January  22,  1563),  calls  Bothwell  "  a  blasphemous  and  ir- 
reverent speaker,  both  of  his  own  sovereign  and  the  Queen  my  mistress." 
5 


66  MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 

» 

bitter.  His  ascendency  in  her  councils  had  culminated  in 
his  proposition  to  have  himself  legitimated,  and  that  the 
Queen  should  lease  the  crown  to  him  and  Argyll.  Mary's 
marriage  to  any  one  would  end  all  such  hopes,  and  Darn- 
ley,  moreover,  was  personally  obnoxious  to  Murray  because 
he  had  been  heard  to  say,  looking  at  a  map  of  Scotland, 
that  Murray  had  "  too  much  for  a  subject."  Elizabeth's 
instructions  precisely  tallied  with  Murray's  inclinations  and 
interest. 

It  was  at  this  time  that,  with  aid  of  Elizabeth  and  Cecil, 
Murray  was  straining  every  nerve  to  prevent  Mary's  mar- 
riage. He  did  his  utmost  to  prevail  upon  her  Protestant 
subjects  to  revolt  against  her,  had  matured  a  plan  to  take 
Lennox  and  Darnley  prisoners  ;  and  this  show  of  armed 
force  was  really  not  meant  for  Bothwell,  but  for  the  Queen. 
Mr.  Froude  is  correct  when  he  says  that  Mary  accused 
him  of  seeking  to  set  the  crown  on  his  own  head.  Even 
Mignet  can  see  that  "  Murray  justifia  en  partie  les  defi- 
ances de  sa  scEur  par  I'hostilite  de  ses  demarches,"  which 
were  more  than  enough  to  justify  her  suspicions.  The 
interest  of  Murray  and  Argyll  in  pursuing  Bothwell  was 
very  clear.  His  condemnation  procured,  they  were  to 
share  his  titles  and  estates. 

We  would,  in  a  friendly  manner,  suggest  to  Mr.  Froude 
that  the  same  page  (viii.  132)  which  records  the  return 
of  Bothwell,  "  the  evil  spirit  of  the  storm,"  needs  radical 
revision.  On  it  appears  this  startling  intelligence  :  "  Len- 
nox had  gathered  about  him  a  knot  of  wild  and  desperate 
youths  —  Cassilis,  Eglinton,  Montgomery,  and  Bothwell  — 
the  worst  and  fiercest  of  all." 

If  our  historian  would  but  read  the  dispatches  upon 
which  he  professes  to  base  his  statements,  he  woiUd  see 
that  Randolph  speaks  of  all  these  men,  not  as  the  friends  of 
Lennox,  but,  on  the  contrary,  as  the  strongest  dependence 
of  Murray  and  Argyll  against  Lennox.  He  would  further 
see  that  Eglinton  and  Montgomery  are  one  and  the  same 
person,  and  that  the  real  satellites  of  Lennox  were  Ruth- 


MARY'S  MARRIAGE. 


67 


ven,  Caithness,  Athol,  Hume,  and  Lord  Robert  Stuart,  "  a 
man  full  of  all  evil." 

Our  English  historian  should  really  be  more  circum- 
spect and  not  thus  go  carelessly  about,  trampling  under 
foot  his  own  and  the  stainless  Murray's  best  friends.^ 

Meanwhile,  Mary  has  been  waiting  Elizabeth's  good 
pleasure  as  to  whom  she  shall  marry.  A  succession  of 
royal  offers  had  been  declined  by  the  widowed  Queen. 
The  King  of  Denmark,  several  Italian  princes,  the  Arch- 
duke Charles  of  Austria,  the  Prince  of  Conde,  Don  Carlos 
the  Inflinta  of  Spain,  and  Eric  King  of  Sweden,  had  all 
sought  her  hand. 

Elizabeth  interfered  at  every  step  under  pretext  of  sis- 
terly affection  or  without  pretext  whatever. 

The  possibility  of  a  match  with  the  Archduke  specially 
affected  her.  Mr.  Froude  tells  us  (vii.  510),  "  She  warned 
her  sister  not  to  be  abused  by  foolishness."  "  If  she  tried 
that  way  she  would  come  to  no  good,"  etc.,  etc.,  —  the  sum 
of  it  all  being  that  "  she  might  take  a  husband  where  she 
pleased,"  provided  it  was  some  one  of  Elizabeth's  own 
choice.  The  indecent  insolence  of  the  proceeding  is  ap- 
parent even  to  Mr.  Froude,  who  takes  unphilosophic  refuge 
in  "  What  right,  it  has  been  asked  impatiently,  had  Eliz- 
abeth to  interfere  with  Mary  Stuart's  marriage  ?  As  much 
right,  it  may  be  answered,  as  Mary  Stuart  had  to  pretend  to 
the  succession  to  the  English  crown."  Pretend!  Elizabeth 
then  suggested  that  an  English  nobleman  would  be  the 
proper  person,  and  that  "  she  would  be  content  to  give  her 
one  whom  perchance  it  could  hardly  be  thought  she  could 
agree  unto,"  —  meaning  her  own  lover  Leicester,  a  corrupt 
villain  and  the  murderer  of  his  wife.  Mr.  Froude  thus 
states  Elizabeth's  touchingly  generous  offer  :  — 

"  Lord  Robert  Dudley  was,  perhaps,  the  most  worthless  of  her 
subjects  ;  but  in  the  loving  eyes  of  his  mistress  he  was  the  knight 
sans  peur  et  sans  reproche ;  and  she  took  a  melancholy  pride  in 
offering  her  sister  her  choicest  jewel."    (viii.  74.) 

1  M.  Wiesener. 


68 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


But  he  spoils  the  "  melancholy  pride  "  at  the  next  page  by 
telling  us  that  Elizabeth  "  was  so  capable  of  falsehood  that 
her  own  expressions  would  have  been  an  insufficient  guar- 
antee for  her  sincerity,"  —  and  that  "  Cecil  approved  the 
choice  to  rid  his  mistress  of  a  companion  whose  presence 
about  her  person  ivas  a  disgrace  to  herT 

And  now  comes  the  plot  of  Murray  and  his  friends  to 
seize  Darnley  and  his  father  (Lennox),  deliver  them  to 
Elizabeth's  agents,  or  slay  them  if  they  made  resistance, 
and  imprison  the  Queen  at  Lochleven.  In  a  note  (viii. 
278),  Mr.  Froude,  with  a  touching  melancholy,  says,  "  A 
sad  and  singular  horoscope  had  already  been  cast  for  Darn- 
ley."  The  magician  of  this  horoscope  was  Randolph,  who 
fears  that "  Darnley  can  have  no  long  life  amongst  this  peo- 
ple." Certainly  not,  if  Mr.  Randolph  understands  himself;  ^ 
for  his  letters  of  that  period  are  full  of  the  details  of  a  plot 
to  stir  up  an  insurrection  in  Scotland,  place  Murray  at  the 
head  of  it,  kill  Darnley  and  his  father,  and  imprison  the 
Queen  at  Lochleven.-  Elizabeth  sent  Murray  £7,000  for 
the  nerve  of  the  insurrection,  and  her  letters  to  Bedford 
instructing  him  to  furnish  Murray  with  money  and  soldiers 
are  in  existence.  The  programme  was  at  last  carried  out 
eighteen  months  later,  when  Darnley  was  killed  and  Mary 
a  prisoner. 

In  February,  1565,  the  young  and  handsome  Henry 
Darnley,  son  of  the  Earl  of  Lennox,  came  to  Edinburgh. 
It  was  soon  rumored  that  he  too  was  a  suitor  for  Mary's 
hand,  and,  it  soon  became  evident,  a  successful  one.  Eliza- 
beth stormed  and  raged,  arrested  Darnley 's  mother.  Lady 
Margaret  Lennox,  and  threw  her  into  the  Tower.  Murray 
broke  out  in  open  rebellion  with  Elizabeth's  aid,  as  we  shall 
see.    Randolph  behaved  with  his  usual  impertinence,  and 

1  Mary  was  fully  advised  that  Randolph,  Elizabeth's  ambassador,  was  an 
ill-natured,  sarcastic  spy  upon  all  her  actions,  and  active  in  alienating  the 
loyalty  of  her  nobles.  She  desired  to  be  rid  of  his  presence,  but  was  dis- 
suaded from  it  by  Murray's  wily  counsel.    Murray  knew  his  friends. 


THE  CATHOLIC  LEAGUE. 


69 


to  aid  him  in  remonstrance  against  the  marriage,  Elizabeth 
sent  one  Tamvvorth,  an  insolent  puppy,  who  was  ordered 
back  to  the  Border. 

On  the  20th  July,  1565,  the  Queen  was  publicly  married 
to  Lord  Darnley  at  Holyrood. 

A  letter  from  Randolph  is  misquoted  (viii.  161),  and 
made  to  say  concerning  Mary  Stuart  what  cannot  be  found 
in  the  original.  Twenty  pages  further  on,  Randolph's 
♦  statement  in  this  letter  is  referred  to  as  warranting  this  in- 
vention, —  "  in  mind  and  body  she  was  said  to  be  swollen 
and  disfigured  by  the  tumultuous  workings  of  her  pas- 
sions." The  passage  is  merely  the  result  of  the  tumultu- 
ous workings  of  Mr.  Fronde's  imagination. 

The  alleged  participation  of  Mary  in  the  so-called  Cath- 
olic League  has  always  been  one  of  the  most  serious  accu- 
sations against  her.  Tytler  regards  it  "  as  one  of  the  most 
fatal  errors  of  her  life,"  and  "  to  it,"  says  Robertson,  "  may 
be  imputed  all  her  subsequent  calamities."  Mr.  Froude 
has  means  of  information  which  were  not  accessible  when 
these  historians  wrote,  and  yet  states  the  matter  thus  :  "  A 
copy  of  the  bond  had  been  sent  across  to  Scotland,  which 
Randolph  ascertained  that  Mary  Stuart  had  signed."  And 
on  this  positive  assertion  he  perseveres  to  the  end.  We 
have  already  had  occasion  to  see  that  in  any'question  touch- 
ing Mary  Stuart,  there  is  unrelenting  war  between  Mr. 
Froude  and  respectable  historical  authority.  In  this  case 
the  result  obtained  from  examination  of  the  authorities  is 
that :  First,  Mary  Stuart  never  signed  the  League.  Second, 
She  distinctly  refused  to  sign  it. 

Our  English  historian's  sole  authority  is  Randolph.  It 
would,  doubtless,  have  been  gratifying  to  him  to  have  been 
able  to  cite  Camden,  De  Thou,  or  Holinshed,  or  even  Knox 
or  Buchanan,  but  they  are  all  silent  on  this  point.  Failing 
these,  he  says  that  he  quotes  Randolph.  But  he  misquotes 
him.  Randolph  did  not  say  that  he  had  ascertained  that 
Mary  had  signed.    He  said,  she  has  signed,  "  as /y^ear." 


70 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


His  dispatch  is  dated  February  7,  15GG,  and  it  is  contra- 
dicted by  a  later  one  from  Bedford,  of  the  lith.  It  was 
not  then  signed,  and  there  is  no  pretense  that  she  signed  it 
afterwards. 

The  historians  of  the  period  state  distinctly  what  sover- 
eigns signed  the  League,  and  the  name  of  the  Queen  of 
Scots  is  not  mentioned.  Moreover,  on  the  IGth  March, 
15G7,  after  Durnley's  death,  the  Bishop  of  Mondovi,  the  pa- 
pal legate  to  Scotland,  wrote  (original  in  the  Medici  Ar- 
chives) :  "  If  the  Queen  had  done  as  was  proposed  and 
urged  on  her  (in  regard  to  the  League),  with  the  promise 
of  all  succor  necessary  for  her  objects,  she  would  at  this 
time  have  found  herself  wholly  mistress  of  her  kingdom,  in 
a  position  to  establish  fully  the  Holy  Catholic  faith.  But 
she  ivould  never  listen  to  it,  though  the  Bishop  of  Dunblane 
and  Father  Edmond  (Jesuit)  were  sent  to  determine  her 
to  embrace  this  most  wise  enterprise." 

"  By  refusing  to  joiu  the  CathoUc  League,  she  maintained  her 
solemn  promises  to  her  Protestant  subjects — the  chief  of  whom, 
we  shall  find  hereafter,  remained  her  stanchest  friends  in  the 
days  of  her  misfortune  —  she  averted  the  demon  of  religious  dis- 
cord from  her  dominions,  and  posterity  will  applaud  the  wisdom 
as  well  as  the  magnitude  of  the  sacrifice  which  she  made  at  this 
momentous  crisis."    (Hosack,  p.  129.) 

Randolph,  strangely  enough,  finds  fault  with  Mary  for 
her  toleration  in  religious  matters.  "  Her  will  to  continue 
papistry,  and  her  desire  to  have  all  men  live  as  they  list,  so 
ofiendeth  the  godly  men's  consciences,  that  it  is  continually 
feared  that  these  matters  will  break  out  to  some  great  mis- 
chief." And  lo  !  the  mischief  did  break  out.  The  Assem- 
bly of  the  Kirk  presented,  under  the  singular  garb  of  a 
"supplication,"  a  remonstrance  to  the  Queen. in  which  they 
declare  that  "  the  practice  of  idolatry  "  could  not  be  toler- 
ated in  the  sovereign  any  more  than  in  the  subject,  and 
that  the  "papistical  and  blasphemous  mass"  should  be 
wholly  abolished.    To  whom  the  Queen  :  — 


MARY  AND  THE  KIRK. 


71 


"  Wlierc  it  Avas  desired  that  the  mass  should  be  suppressed  and 
abolished,  as  well  in  her  majesty's  own  person  and  flimily  as 
amongst  her  subjects,  her  highness  did  answer  for  herself,  that 
she  was  noways  persuaded  that  there  was  any  impiety  in  the  mass, 
and  trusted  her  subjects  would  not  press  her  to  act  against  her 
conscience ;  for  not  to  dissemble,  but  to  deal  plainly  with  them, 
she  neither  might  nor  would  forsake  the  religion  wherein  she  had 
been  educated  and  brought  up,  believing  the  same  to  be  the  true 
religion,  and  grounded  on  the  word  of  God.  Her  loving  subjects 
should  know  that  she,  neither  in  times  past,  nor  yet  in  time  com- 
ing, did  intend  to  force  the  conscience  of  any  person,  but  to  per- 
mit every  one  to  serve  God  in^such  manner  as  they  are  persuaded 
to  be  the  best,  that  they  likewise  would  not  urge  her  to  anything 
that  stood  not  with  the  quietness  of  her  mind." 

"  Nothing,"  remarks  Mr.  Hosack,  "  could  exceed  the 
savage  rudeness  of  the  language  of  the  Assembly ;  nothing 
could  exceed  the  dignity  and  moderation  of  the  Queen's 
reply."  Of  all  this,  in  Mr.  Fronde's  pages,  not  one  word  ! 
Indeed,  he  at  all  times  religiously  keeps  out  of  sight  all  Mary 
says  or  writes,  admitting  rarely  a  few  words  under  prudent 
censorship  and  liberal  expurgation.  Sweetly  comparing 
the  Assembly  to  "  the  children  of  Israel  on  their  entrance 
into  Canaan,"  he  dissimulates  their  savage  rudeness,  and 
adds,  that  Murray,  though  he  was  present,  "  no  longer 
raised  his  voice  in  opposition."  Randolph  fully  confirms 
what  Throckmorton  reported  four  years  before,  —  that  she 
neither  desired  to  change  her  own  religion  nor  to  interfere 
with  that  of  her  subjects.  Mary  told  Knox  the  same  thing 
when  she  routed  him,  by  his  own  admission,  in  profane  his- 
tory, and  his  own  citations  from  the  Old  Testament.  Where 
she  obtained  her  familiarity  with  the  Scriptures  we  cannot 
imagine,  if  Mr.  Froude  tells  the  truth  about  her  "  French 
education."  "  A  Catholic  sovereign  sincerely  pleading  to 
a  Protestant  assembly  for  liberty  of  conscience,  might  have 
been  a  lesson  to  the  bigotry  of  mankind "  (viii.  182)  ; 
"  but,"  adds  Mr.  Froude,  "  Mary  Stuart  was  not  sincere." 
When  this  gentleman  says  Mary  Stuart  is  intolerant,  we 


72 


MAEY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


show  him,  by  a  standard  universally  recognized,  her  words 
and  actions,  all  always  consistent  with  each  other  and  with 
themselves,  that  she  was  eminently  tolerant  and  liberal. 
But  when  he  gives  us  his  personal  and  unsupported  opin- 
ion that  "  she  was  not  sincere,"  he  passes  beyond  the  bounds 
of  historical  argument  into  a  realm  where  we  cannot  follow 
him. 

Still  greater  than  Mr.  Fronde's  difficulty  of  quoting 
Mary  at  all,  is  his  difficulty  of  quoting  her  correctly  when 
he  pretends  to.  Randolph  comes  to  Mary  with  a  dictatorial 
message  from  Elizabeth,  that  she  shall  not  take  up  arms 
against  the  lords  in  insurrection.  Our  historian  calls  it  a 
•request  that  she  would  do  no  injury  to  the  Protestant  lords, 
who  were  her  good  subjects.  Mary  replied,  according  to 
Proude  (viii.  188),  "that  Elizabeth  might  call  them  'good 
subjects  ; '  she  had  found  them  bad  subjects,  and  as  such 
she  meant  to  treat  them."    Mary  really  said  :  — 

"  For  those  whom  your  mistress  calls  '  my  best  subjects,'  I  can- 
not esteem  them  so,  nor  so  do  they  deserve  to  be  accounted  of 
that  that  they  will  not  obey  my  commands  ;  and  therefore  my 
good  sister  ought  not  to  be  offended  if  I  do  that  against  them  as 
they  deserve." 

The  truth  is,  Mary's  unvarying  queenly  dignity  and 
womanly  gentleness  in  all  she  speaks  and  writes  is  a  source 
of  profound  unhappiness  to  her  English  historian,  refuting 
as  it  does  his  theory  of  her  character.  Consequently  it  is"* 
his  aim  to  vulgarize  it  down  to  a  standard  in  vogue  else- 
where. 

Mr.  Froude  is  most  felicitous  when  he  disguises  Mary, 
as  he  frequently  does,  with  Elizabeth's  tortuous  drapery. 
Thus :  — 

"  Open  and  straightforward  conduct  did  not  suit  the  complexion 
of  Mary  Stuart's  genius  |  she  breathed  more  freely,  and  she  used 
her  abilities  with  better  effect,  in  the  uncertain  twilight  of  con- 
spiracy." 

"  Uncertain  twilight  "  is  pretty.    But  where  were  Mary's 


THE  PISTOL  STORY. 


73 


conspiracies  ?  Had  she  Randolphs  at  Elizabeth's  court, 
and  Driirys  on  the  Border,  plotting,  intriguing,  and  bribing 
English  noblemen?  Had  she  two  thirds  of  Elizabeth's 
council  of  state  pensioned  as  paid  spies  ?  Had  she  salaried 
officials  to  pick  up  or  invent  English  court  scandal  for  her 
anuisenient?  Truly  it  is  refreshing  to  turn  from  Mary's 
.  twilight  conspiracies  to  the  open  and  honest  transactions 
of  Elizabeth,  Cecil,  and  Randolph. 

But  of  the  malicious  gossip  of  Elizabeth's  spies  one  might 
not  so  much  complain,  if  the  historian  had  the  fairness  to 
give  their  reports  without  embroidery  of  rhetoric  and 
imagination.  Thus,  when  Randolph  writes,  "  There  is  a 
silly  story  afloat  that  the  Queen  sometimes  carries  a  pistol," 
Mr.  Froude  considers  himself  authorized  to  say,  "  She 
carried  pistols  in  hand  and  pistols  at  her  saddle-bow  ;  "  and, 
as  usual,  reading  her  thoughts,  goes  on  to  tell  us  that  "  her 
one  peculiar  hope  was  to  destroy  her  brother,  against  whom 
she  bore  an  especial  and  unexplained  animosity."  The 
personal  intimacy  between  Randolph  and  Murray  more  than 
sufficiently  explains  the  source  of  the  information  given  in 
Randolph's  letter  of  October  13th.  (viii.  196.)  Mr.  Froude 
in  a  moment  of  weakness  says  that  the  intimacy  between 
the  Queen  and  Riccio  was  so  confidential  as  to  provoke  cal- 
umny. That  anything  said  of  Mary  Stuart  could  possibly 
be  calumny  is  an  admission  only  less  amazing  than  his  other 
statement  that  "  she  was  warm  and  true  in  her  friendships." 
The  Queen's  indignation  against  Murray  is  sufficiently  ac- 
counted for  by  the  existence  of  the  calumnies,  and  the  fact 
that  Murray's  treasons  sent  him  at  this  time  a  fugitive  to 
his  mistress  Elizabeth.  A  few  pages  further  on,  we  have 
Mary  riding  "  in  steel  bonnet  and  corselet,  with  a  dagg  at 
her  saddle-bow  "  (viii.  213),  for  which  Randolph  is  quoted  as 
authority.  But  Randolph  wrote,  "  If  what  I  have  heard 
be  true^  she  rode,"  etc.,  —  questionable  hearsay  where  Mary 
Stuart  is  concerned  answering  somewhat  better  than  fact. 

After  the  armed  rebellion  of  Murray  and  his  friends, 


74 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


popularly  known  in  Scotland  as  "  The  Runabout  Raid,"  we 
have  Mary  "  breathing  nothing  but  anger  and  defiance. 
The  affection  of  a  sister  for  a  brother  was  curdled  into  a 
hatred  the  more  malignant  because  it  was  more  unnatural. 
Her  whole  passion  was  concentrated  on  Murray."  (viii. 
198.) 

It  must  be  clear  to  every  one  how  reprehensible  Mary . 
was  for  showing  any  feeling  at  all  in  defense  of  her  crown, 
her  liberty,  and  her  life  ;  and  with  Mr.  Froude's  premises 
and  logic,  Murray  gave  a  signal  proof  of  affection  for  his 
sister  in  arraying  himself  against  her  legitimate  authority 
as  the  head  of  an  insurrection.  Mr.  Froude  can  see,  in  the 
just  indignation  of  the  Queen  against  domestic  traitors  in 
league  with  a  foreign  power,  nothing  but  the  violence  of 
a  vengeful  fury.  His  anxiety  to  possess  his  readers  of  the 
same  view  has  brought  him  into  a  serious  difficulty,  which 
has  been  exposed  by  M.  Wiesener  in  his  articles  on  "  Marie 
Stuart."^  Mr.  Froude  quotes  a  letter  (viii.  211)  of  Ran- 
dolph to  Cecil  of  October  5th,  "  in  Rolls  House,"  by  which 
he  means  Record  Office,  to  show  that  Mary  "  was  deaf  to 
advice  as  she  had  been  to  menace,"  and  "  she  said  she  would 
have  no  peace  till  she  had  Murray's  or  ChatelherauW s  head.''* 
This  letter  appears  to  be  visible  to  nobody  but  Mr. 
Froude  ;  and  we  have  the  authority  of  Mr.  Joseph  Steven- 
son, who  is  more  at  home  among  the  MSS.  of  the  Record 
Office  than  Mr.  Froude,  and  who,  when  he  uses  them,  has 
the  merit  of  citing  them  in  their  integrity,  for  stating  that 
this  letter  of  the  5th  October,  referred  to  by  Mr.  Froude, 
is  not  in  the  Record  Office.^    But  there  is  a  letter  .there 

1  These  articles  appeared  in  the  Revue  des  Questions  Ilistoriques  in  1868. 
They  are  exceedingly  able,  and  we  take  great  pleasure  in  recording  our 
obligations  to  Professor  Wiesener  for  the  aid  afforded  by  them  in  the  prep- 
aration of  this  work. 

2  See  Calendar  of  the  State  Papers  relating  to  Scotland^  preserved  in  the 
State  Paper  Department  of  her  Majest'ifs  Public  Record  Office.  2  vols, 
quarto.  London,  1858.  Copy  in  Astor  Library.  This  calendar  gives  the 
date  and  abstract  of  the  contents  of  each  document.  There  is  no  record  of 
any  letter  of  Randolph  to  Cecil  of  October  5th,  1565,  but  there  is  one  of 
October  -Ith. 


TREASON  OR  PATRIOTISM? 


75 


from  Randolph  to  Cecil  of  the  4th  October,  in  which  Ran- 
dol[)h  represents  Mary  "  not  only  uncertain  as  to  what  she 
should  do,  but  inclined  to  clement  measures,  and  so  unde- 
cided as  to  hope  that  matters  could  be  arranged  ! " 

This  does  not  sound  like  "  deaf  to  advice,"  and  Mr. 
Froude  can  arrange  this  little  difficulty  with  the  dates  and 
Mr.  Stevenson  at  his  leisure.  Meantime,  we  anxiously 
wait  to  hear  from  Mr.  Froude  where  he  found  his  author- 
ity for  stating  that  Mary  said  she  would  have  no  peace  till 
she  had  Murray's  or  Chatelherault's  head. 

Referring  to  this  insurrection  of  Murray,  it  is  curious 
and  to  some  extent  amusing  to  see  with  what  ingenuity 
Mr.  Froude  contrives  to  throw  a  halo  of  virtue  and  patriot- 
ism around  his  repeated  attempts  to  dethrone  his  sister  by 
plots,  treachery,  armed  rebellion,  and  the  aid  of  a  foreign 
power.  As  already  remarked,  our  historian  is  the  personal 
friend  or  open  enemy  of  all  his  historical  characters.  For 
him,  the  same  act  is  criminal  in  the  one  but  virtuous  in  the 
other.  In  Reginald  Pole  it  is  damnable ;  in  Murray  it  is 
virtue  and  patriotism  combined.  At  an  early  stage  of  his 
history  he  is  decidedly  of  the  opinion  that  "  for  a  subject 
to  invite  a  foreign  power  to  invade  his  country  is  the  dark- 
est form  of  treason  "  (iii.  40),  and  by  a  piece  of  syllogistic 
play  he  finds  Reginald  Pole  clearly  guilty  of  such  treason 
for  merely  writing  to  a  friend  a  letter  susceptible  of  two  or 
three  constructions  not  necessarily  involving  any  such  in- 
tention. 

But  at  the  same  time  he  can  perceive  nothing  that  is  not 
lovely  in  Murray's  infamy  —  for  which  this  provident  pro- 
vision is  made  :  "  A  distinct  r.eligious  obligation  might  con- 
vert the  traitor  into  a  patriot,"  —  the  religious  obligation  of 
course  requiring  Mr.  Froude's  approval  by  his  own  stand- 
ard, and  not  that  of  the  individual  acting  under  the  obli- 
gation. 

Mary  marched  against  the  rebels  with  eighteen  thousand 
men.  As  she  approached,  they  fled  into  England,  and  the 
rebellion  was  over. 


76 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


"The  Queen  of  Scots,  following  in  hot  pursuit,  glared 
across  the  frontier  at  her  escaping  prey."  (viii.  214.) 
Our  author's  precise  information  as  to  the  expression  of 
Mary  Stuart's  eyes  is  really  remarkable.  Here  her  eyes 
"  glare  ;  "  elsewhere  (viii.  365 ),  there  is  an  "  odd  glitter  in 
her  eyes while  at  page  161,  they  are  "  flashing  pride  and 
defiance." 

It  is  this  imaginative  power  and  talent  for  pictorial  em- 
bellishment which  lend  to  Mr.  Fronde's  work  such  peculiar 
attraction  for  the  general  reader.  And  to  give  expression 
to  this  natural  appreciation,  such  testimonials  as  the  follow- 
ing are  seriously  produced  as  evidences  of  its  merit. 

"  What  a  wonderful  history  it  is  !  "  says  Mrs.  Mulock 
Craik  ;  "  and  wonderful  indeed  is  it,  with  its  vivid  pictures 
of  scenes  and  persons  long  passed  away ;  its  broad  charity, 
its  tender  human  sympathy,  its  ever  present  dignity,  its 
outbursts  of  truest  pathos." 

All  this  is  in  keeping  with  the  eternal  fitness  of  things. 
This  excellent  lady,  a  somewhat  successful  writer  of  novels, 
expresses  herself  in  all  sincerity.  Her  admiration  is  genu- 
ine. It  is  that  of  a  pupil  for  her  master,  and  she  ingen- 
uously admires  one  who  has  attained  excellence  in  his  art. 
Doubtless  many  will  repeat  after  her,  "  What  a  wonderful 
history  it  is ! " 


CHAPTER  VIIL 


AN  EXPLANATION  FROM  MR.  FROUDE. 

"  Mr.  Froude  does  not  seem  to  have  fully  grasped  the  nature  of  inverted 
commas."  — London  Saturday  Review. 

In  the  New  York  "  Tribune"  of  October  15,  1870,  the 
following  article  appeared  editorially  :  — 

"In  the  eighth  volume  of  Mr.  Froude's  *  History,'  he  quotes 
an  important  letter  which  he  states  was  written  by  Randolph  to 
Sir  W.  Cecil.  A  writer  in  a  recent  number  of  '  The  Catholic 
World '  asserts  that  he  has  been  informed  by  Mr.  Stevenson  of 
the  Record  Office  (where  Mr.  Froude  says  he  found  it)  that 
there  is  no  such  letter  in  that  office  at  all.  The  impression  con- 
veyed by  the  very  positive  statement  in  '  The  Catholic  World,' 
on  the  authority  of  Mr.  Stevenson  (who  is  a  Catholic),  is  that 
Froude  forged  the  letter.  On  reading  the  article  in  the  Amer- 
ican periodical  Mr.  Froude  wrote  to  the  Foreign  Office,  and  dis- 
covered that  there  has  been,  either  by  himself  or  a  compositor,  a 
clerical  error  in  giving  the  name  of  the  writer  of  the  letter.  It 
was  the  Earl  of  Bedford,  instead  of  Randolph,  who  wrote  the  let- 
ter, though,  owing  to  the  fact  that  Randolph  was  at  that  time 
about  the  court,  and  in  connection  with  Bedford,  the  latter  could 
only  have  written  on  the  authority  of  Randolph.  However  that 
may  be,  the  impression  produced  by  the  statement  of  the  critic 
in  '  The  Catholic  World  '  is  erroneous.  In  the  letter  he  is  right, 
in  the  spirit  false.  He  says  there  is  no  such  letter  in  the  Public 
Record  Office.  We  copy  below  the  reply  that  Froude  has  re- 
ceived from  that  office.  The  date,  letter,  etc.,*  are  given  in  this 
reply  verbatim,  as  they  are  contained  in  the  '  History,'  the  only 
difference  absolutely  being  that,  by  the  clerical  error  mentioned, 
Randolph  is  given  as  the  writer  instead  of  Bedford,  an  error  that 
does  not  in  the  slightest  degree  affect  the  moral  or  historical 
weight  of  the  extract :  *  The  letter  referred  to  in  Mr.  Froude's 


78 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


note  to  Sir  Thomas  Hardy  is  from  the  Earl  of  Bedford  to  Sir  "W. 
Cecil,  dated  Ahiwick,  5  Oct.,  15G5  (Scotland,  Elix.  vol.  xi.  No. 
60  A).  The  words  are  as  follows  :  "  Ther  is  no  talke  of  peace 
with  that  Q.  but  that  she  will  first  have  a  heade  of  the  Duke  or 
of  the  Erie  of  Murrey."  The  volume  of  "  Foreign  State  Papers, 
1564-1565,  p.  480,  No.  1558,"  about  to  be  published,  also  con- 
tains this  letter. 

"  '  W.  Noel  Sainsbury. 
" '  Public  Record  Office,  12  Aug.,  1870.'  " 

To  this  the  following  reply  was  published  in  the  "  Tri- 
bune "  of  October  24  :  — 

"  THE  FROUDE  CONTROVERSY. 

"  To  the  Editor  of  the  '  Tribune ' ;  — 

"  Sir,  —  A  paragraph  in  your  issue  of  the  15th  inst.,  under  the 
heading  '  Literary  Notes,'  endeavors  to  explain  away  one  of  the 
many  serious  errors  committed  by  Mr.  Froude  in  his  '  History  of 
England.'  At  page  211,  vol.  viii.,  he  makes  a  grievous  accusa- 
tion against  Mary  Stuart,  based  on  a  letter  from  Randolph  (Queen 
Elizabeth's  ambassador  in  Scotland)  to  Cecil  (the  English  Prime 
Minister),  which  letter  is  thus  cited  :  '  Randolph  to  Cecil,  Octo- 
ber 5,  Scotch  MSS.  Rolls  House.'  In  an  article  reviewing, Mr. 
Froude's  work,  published  in  the  August  number  of  '  The  Catho- 
lic World,'  this  accusation  was  commented  upon,  and  the  asser- 
tion was  made,  on  indisputable  authority,  that  '  this  letter  of  5th 
October,  referred  to  by  Mr.  Froude,  is  not  in  the  Record  Office ;  * 
and  it  now  appears  from  Mr.  Froude's  attempted  defense  that 
the  assertion  is  correct,  and  that  there  is  no  such  letter  there. 
But  the  benefit  of  a  mistake,  '  either  by  himself  or  a  compositor,' 
is  claimed  for  Mr.  Froude,  and  it  is  said  that  there  is  a  letter  in 
the  Record  Office  from  the  Duke  of  Bedford  to  Cecil,  'the  only 
difference  absolutely  being  that  by  the  clerical  error  mentioned 
Randolph  is  given  as  the  writer  instead  of  Bedford  —  an  error 
that  does  not  in  the  slightest  degree  affect  the  moral  or  historical 
weight  of  the  extract.'  Upon  this  assertion  the  writer  of  the 
Froude  review  in  '  The  Catholic  World'  takes  direct  issue  with 
the  author  of  the  '  Tribune  '  paragraph,  whether  he  be  ]\lr. 
Froude  himself,  or  some  one  speaking  for  him,  and  in  the  proper 
place,  namely,  the  closing  article  of  his  series  on  Mr.  Froude's 


MR.  FROUDE'S  explanation. 


79 


■work  he  pledges  himself  to  show  that  in  this  matter  he  is  right, 
not  only  '  in  the  letter,'  but  also  '  in  the  spirit,'  and  that  the 
Bedford  letter  falls  deplorably  short  of  what  is  claimed  for  it. 

"M. 

"  New  York,  Oct  19,  1870." 

Not  stopping  to  comment  upon  some  objectionable 
points  in  the  "  Tribune "  paragraph,  one  of  which  is  the 
singular  appeal  to  Protestant  prejudice  in  pointing  out  Mr. 
Stevenson  as  a  Catholic,^  we  pass  to  the  discussion  of  the 
strictly  historical  question  involved. 

And,  at  the  outset,  we  decline  to  be  at  all  accountable 
for  the  proposition  that  "  the  impression  conveyed  by  the 
very  positive  statement  in  *  The  Catholic  World '  is  that 
Froude  forged  the  letter."  Forged  is  a  gross  and  serious 
term.  We  neither  used  the  word  nor  any  expression 
equivalent  to  it.  Mr.  Froude  could  not  be  charged  with 
forging  a  letter  he  did  not  produce.  He  cited,  with  the 
usual  quotation  marks  which  convey  the  assurance  to 
the  reader  that  the  words  are  original,  a  short  passage 
which  he  said  was  in  a  certain  designated  letter.  At  page 
211,  vol.  viii.,  he  makes  Mary  Stuart  say  she  could  have 
no  peace  till  she  had  Murray's  or  ChatelheraulC s  head"  and 
gave  as  his  authority  a  letter  of  "  Randolph  to  Cecil,  Oct. 
5,  Scotch  MSS.  Rolls  House."  We  asserted  (August  No. 
"  Catholic  World,"  p.  587)  "  this  letter  of  5th  October  re- 
ferred to  by  Mr.  Froude  is  not  in  the  Record  Office.''  But 
our  "  statement  was  very  positive,"  says  the  "  Tribune  "  par- 
agraph. It  was.  And  we  now  repeat  it  yet  more  posi- 
tively, since  Mr.  Froude  admits  that  the  Randolph  letter 
cited  by  him  has  no  existence.  On  that  point,  the  contro- 
versy may  be  considered  as  closed. 

1  It  appears  that  Mr.  Stevenson  was  written  to  in  his  official  capacity, 
and  the  question  asked  him,  Is  there  in  tlie  Record  Office  such  a  document 
as  a  letter  from  Randolph  to  Cecil,  dated  October  5,  15G5?  —  to  which  Mr. 
Stevenson  replied  that  there  was  not.  Now,  neither  the  propriety  of  his 
replying  nor  the  truth  of  his  answer  is  at  all  questioned,  but — "  Mr.  Ste- 
venson is  a  Catholic  "  —  ah ! 


80 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


We  freely  accept  the  explanation  given,  according  to 
which  Mr.  Froude  meant  to  cite  a  letter  from  the  Duke 
of  Bedford  to  Cecil,  "  the  only  difference  absolutely  being 
that,  by  the  clerical  error  mentioned,  Randolph  is  given  as 
the  writer  instead  of  Bedford." 

Then,  according  to  this  explanation,  it  was  Bedford  who 
wrote,  "  She  said  she  could  have  no  peace  till  she  had 
Murray's  or  Chatelherault's  head  ?  "  But  it  appears  that, 
"in  the  letter  referred  to  in  Mr.  Froude's  note  to  Sir 
Thomas  Hardy,"  the  Earl  of  Bedford  wrote  no  such  thing, 
and  we  still  wait  to  hear  from  Mr.  Froude  where  he  found 
his  authority  for  stating  that  Mary  Stuart  used  the  words 
he  has  put  in  her  mouth. 

We  do  not  want  amiable  supposition  and  inference  and 
a  general  good-natured  wish  to  help  a  worthy  gentleman 
out  of  a  serious  difficulty  of  his  own  making.  We  desire, 
and  have  the  clearest  right  to  demand,  proper  documentary 
evidence  that  Mary  Stuart  used  the  precise  language  attrib- 
uted to  her  by  Mr.  Froude.  The  explanation  offered  by 
the  "  Tribune  "  paragraph  does  not  supply  such  evidence, 
and  we  have  good  reasons  for  doubting  Mr.  Froude's  ability 
to  produce  it. 

If  Mr.  Froude  meant  to  cite  the  words  "  there  is  no  talk 
of  peace,"  etc.,  as  proving  the  malignant  hatred  of  Mary 
Stuart  for  her  bastard  half-brother  Murray,  why  did  he  not 
quote  the  express  language  of  the  letter  ?  By  what  right 
does  he  substitute  other  words,  conveying  a  very  different 
meaning  ?  We  know  of  no  school  of  history  or  morality 
whose  teachings  warrant  a  historian  in  giving  as  an  orig- 
inal authority  his  own  interpretation,  in  his  own  words,  of 
the  meaning  of  that  authority.  The  writing  of  history, 
with  aid  of  such  processes,  would  soon  become  what  to  too 
great  extent  it  unfortunately  is  —  the  composition  of  ro- 
mance. 

The  singular  explanation  is  given  that,  "owing  to  the 
fact  that  Randolph  was  at  that  time  about  the  court  and  in 


MR.  froude's  explanation.'  81 

connection  with  Bedford,  the  latter  could  only  have  written 
on  the  authority  of  Randolph."  The  natural  inference  from 
this  statement  is  that  Randolph,  "  who  was  about  the 
court,"  must  have  authorized  Bedford  to  write  the  letter, 
thus  leading  us  to  suppose  that  Bedford  was  his  subordi- 
nate, and  also  "  about  the  court." 

Very  far  from  it.  Randolph  was  not  then,  and  never 
was  in  a  position  to  be  the  personal  equal  or  the  official 
superior  of  Bedford.  An  English  earl  writing  under  the 
authority  of  Mr.  Randall  ?  ^ 

Truly,  the  man  who  in  the  year  of  grace  1565  should 
have  intimated  to  Francis,  the  second  Earl  of  Bedford, 
that  he  was  Randolph's  subordinate,  would  have  passed 
what  our  French  friends  call  a  mauvais  quart  dlieure. 
Independently  of  other  all-sufficient  considerations,  such  as 
rank  and  title,  their  relative  positions  toward  their  sov- 
ereign should  settle  this  question.  Randolph's  written 
communications  were,  as  a  general  rule,  strictly  official  and 
addressed  to  Cecil,  Elizabeth's  minister.^ 

But  Bedford,  whenever  he  thought  it  necessary,  ad- 
dressed Elizabeth  directly  and  in  person,  and  she  answered 
him  with  her  own  hand.^  And  this  could  not  well  be 
otherwise,  considering  the  delicate  nature  of  the  subjects 
treated  between  them.    Of  one  letter  of  Bedford  to  Eliza- 

1  This  was  his  real  name,  although  he  was  usually  called  Randolph. 

2  Speaking  of  a  certain  negotiation,  Mr.  Froude  says  (xi.  71),  "Ran- 
dolph, who  was  not  admitted  to  his  mistress's  secrets,  could  not  under- 
stand what  she  was  about." 

3  In  the  short  space  of  five  weeks,  the  following  correspondence  took 
place:  September  12,1505,  Elizabeth  to  Bedford.  (This  is  the  letter  ifi 
which  she  instructs  him  secretl}'  to  furnish  Murray  with  money  and  sol- 
diers, taking  care  not  to  let  her  be  detected.)  September  19,  1565,  Bed- 
ford to  Elizabeth.  September  28,  Bedford  to  Elizabeth.  October  13, 
Bedford  to  Elizabeth.  October  20,  Elizabeth  to  Bedford.  October  20, 
receipt  by  the  Earl  of  Murray  to  Bedford  (for  the  Queen  of  England)  of 
£7,000,  "  to  be  eniploit  in  the  common  cause  and  action  now  in  hands 
within  this  realm  of  Scotland,  enterprisit  by  the  nobilitie  thereof  for  main- 
teynance  of  the  true  religion."  Dumfries,  1st  October,  1565  (signed) 
James  Stewart. 

6 


82  TiIARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 

beth,  Mr.  Fronde  says  (viii.  214),  "Bedford  wrote  in  plain, 
stern  terms  to  the  Queen  herself." 

"  About  the  court  ?  "  Are  we  to  understand  that  Ran- 
dolph was  a  guest,  a  spy,  or  a  hanger-on  at  the  Scottish 
court  ?  "  In  connection  with  Bedford  !  "  What  is  meant 
by  this  strange  ambiguity !  There  is  no  occasion  for  any 
mystery.  Randolph  was  the  diplomatic  representative  of 
Elizabeth  at  the  court  of  Scotland,  and  having,  by  virtue 
of  his  position,  frequent  opportunities  of  seeing  and  hear- 
ing Mary  Stuart,  his  testimony  as  to  her  sayings  and  do- 
ings is  valuable  in  so  far  as  it  is  that  of  a  person  who 
might  "possibly  have  heard  her  say  "she  could  have  no 
peace,"  etc.  —  provided  she  ever  said  so.  On  this  account, 
the  citation,  "Randolph  to  Cecil,"  was  important  to  Mr. 
Froude.  But  Randolph  did  not  so  report  her,  and  we  are 
asked  to  suppose  that  Bedford  did,  on  the  authority  of 
Randolph.  But  here  a  serious  difficulty  arises.  Although 
Randolph  was  at  the  time  "  about,  the  court,"  the  Earl  of 
Bedford  was  not.  He  was  not  "about  the  court."  He 
was  not  at  Holyrood.  He  was  not  in  Edinburgh.  In 
short,  he  was  not  even  in  Scotland.  As  marshal  or  gov- 
ernor of  Berwick,  in  command  of  the  Border,  Bedford  was 
then  in  England,  where  Mr.  Froude  represents  him  a 
few  days  later  as  "  confined  by  his  orders  at  Carlisle." 
(viii.  214.) 

Although,  as  Mr.  Froude  says  (viii.  113),  "Bedford  was 
a  determined  man,  with  the  prejudices  of  a  Protestant  and 
the  resolution  of  an  English  statesman ; "  although  he  was 
Elizabeth's  ready  tool  in  an  infamous  piece  of  treachery 
with  the  Scotch  rebels  in  the  insurrection  against  the  Scot- 
tish Queen,  which  Mr.  Froude  expressly  admits  (viii.  214) 
as  "  undertaken  at  Elizabeth's  instigation  and  mainly  in 
Elizabeth's  interests,"  and  although  he  offered  to  reenact 
the  villainy  of  Admiral  Winter,  proposing  to  Elizabeth  that 
she  should  "  play  over  again  the  part  which  she  had  played 
with  Winter ;  he  would  himself  enter  Scotland  with  the 


MR.  FROUDE'S  explanation. 


83 


Berwick  garrison,  and  her  majesty  could  afterward  seem  to 
blame  him  for  attempting  such  things  as  with  the  help  of 
others  he  could  bring  about,"  he  may,  nevertheless,  have 
written  in  good  faith  to  Cecil,  "  There  is  no  talk  of  peace 
with  that  Queen,"  etc.  Talk  with  signifies  the  discourse  of 
at  least  two  persons. 

Talk  by  whom  ?  When  ?  Where  ?  We  take  his  com- 
munication to  Cecil  to  mean  that  people  thought  it  useless 
to  talk  or  think  of  peace  —  that  is  to  say,  the  end  of  the 
rebellion,  until  Murray  and  Chatelherault,  its  leaders,  were 
punished  ;  and  this  was  the  most  natural  view  in  the  world 
for  an  Englishman  or  a  Scotchman  of  that  day  to  take. 
Under  Henry  and  under  Elizabeth,  no  man  who  arrayed 
himself  against  regal  authority  ever  escaped  confiscation, 
the  block,  and  the  axe,  except  by  exile,  and  even  then 
was  not  always  safe  from  treacherous  English  vengeance. 
Mary  Stuart  was  then  at  the  beginning  of  her  career,  and 
was  not  yet  known  for  that  kindness  of  heart  and  horror 
of  bloodshed  which  made  her  reign  one  of  "  plots  and  par- 
dons," and  sacrificed  her  crown  and  her  life. 

The  punishment  of  Murray  and  Chatelherault  for  their 
crime  was  at  that  day  looked  upon  as  a  matter  of  course. 

The  Bedford  letter  is  dated  Alnwick  (England).  Whence 
came  Bedford's  information,  "  There  is  no  talk  of  peace  ?  " 
Is  Mr.  Froude  in  possession  of  a  letter  of  Randolph  to 
Bedford  upon  the  subject  ?  Did  Bedford,  in  England,  re- 
ceive any  communication  at  all  from  Randolph,  who  was 
"  about  the  court  ?  "  If  Randolph  knew  that  Mary  Stuart 
had  said  "  she  could  have  no  peace,"  etc.,  he  was  seriously 
derelict  in  duty  in  not  reporting  it  to  Cecil.  We  know  full 
well  the  envious  avidity  of  Elizabeth  for  the  most  trifling 
details  concerning  Mary  Stuart's  movements,  even  when 
they  had  not  the  slightest  connection  with  affairs  of  state ; 
we  also  know  the  industry  with  which  Randolph  ministered 
to  her  desire.  But  here  was  a  serious  matter,  a  question 
of  open  war,  and  it  was  important  that  Elizabeth  should 


84 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


be  advised  as  to  Mary's  plans  concerning  the  rebellion, 
which,  as  we  have  seen,  Elizabeth  herself,  aided  by  Murray, 
had  set  in  motion.  Randolph  was  not  a  fool,  but  he  would 
have  been  weak  indeed  if  he  had  failed  t6  keep  his  mis- 
tress advised  in  so  important  a  crisis  as  this.  He  made  no 
such  failure.  He  carefully  watched-  Mary,  and  had  her 
watched,  for  he  had  spies  in  Holyrood.  And  now  having 
information  which  it  was  important  that  Elizabeth,  through 
Cecil,  should  be  possessed  of,  are  we  to  suppose  that  he 
did  not  send  it  to  London,  but  to  Bedford  at  Carlisle  or  at 
Alnwick  ?  The  proposition  is  too  absurd  to  discuss,  and 
we  are  answered  by  the  facts.  On  the  4th  of  October,  the 
day  previous  to  the  date  of  Bedford's  Alnwick  letter,  Ran- 
dolph writes  to  Cecil,  representing  Mary  as  "  not  only  un- 
certain as  to  what  she  should  do,  but  inclined  to  clement 
measures,  and  so  undecided  as  to  hope  that  matters  could  he 
arranged''  Does  this  sound  like  "  deaf  to  advice "  and 
"  breathing  vengeance  "  ?  If  Mr.  Froude  had  any  wish  to 
represent  Mary  Stuart  according  to  the  evidence  before 
him,  he  would  not  have  thrust  aside  and  ignored  this  letter 
of  Randolph.  It  is  the  testimony  of  an  enemy  of  Mary 
Stuart,  speaking  of  his  personal  knowledge  and  in  the  line 
of  his  duty.  But  such  testimony  does  not  suit  our  his- 
torian. It  does  not  support  his  Mary  Stuart  theory.  He 
passes  it  over  in  silence,  goes  to  England  to  be  informed 
of  what  has  taken  place  in  Scotland,  and  gives  us  after  all 
a  vague  statement,  a  mere  on-dit,  from  which  he  evolves 
words  which  he  asserts  were  spoken  by  the  Queen  of  Scots. 
His  entire  account  of  the  events  between  the  1st  and  the 
15th  of  October,  1565,  is  not  history,  but  its  caricature. 
Cecil  writing  "  a  private  letter  of  advice  "  to  Mary  Stuart ! 
Cockburn,  an  English  spy,  speaking  "  his  mind  freely  to 
her ! "  De  Mauvissiere,  the  agent  of  Catherine  de  INIedicis, 
her  bitterest  enemy  after  Elizabeth  and  Cecil,  "  entreat- 
ing "  and  expostulating  with  her  ! 

There  is  another  letter  in  this  connection  as  invisible  to 


MR.  FROUDE'S  explanation. 


85 


Mr.  Fronde  as  the  Randolph  letter  of  October  4.  Mr. 
Fronde's  narrative,  defective  in  dates,  is  so  confus'ed  as  to 
conceal  the  important  fact  that  Mary  Stnart  did  all  in  her 
power  to  maintain  peace,  and  that  on  the  5th  of  October,  so 
far  from  having  commenced  hostilities,  she  was  still  in  Edin- 
burgh, and  did  not  leave  Holyrood  until  the  8th  of  October, 
when  she  addressed  an  admirable  letter  to  Elizabeth, 
which  we  regret  our  limits  will  not  allow  us  to  insert  here. 

In  closing,  we  must  express  our  surprise  that  Mr. 
Fronde  should  have  selected  for  reclamation  or  protest  a 
matter  so  comparatively  unimportant  Our  readers  must 
not  suppose  that  the  case  discussed  is  an  isolated  one.  In 
jQur  previous  articles,  we  have  pointed  out  scores  of  more 
serious  errors.  Mr.  Fronde's  insanity  for  the  romantic 
and  picturesque  would,  as  we  have  already  remarked, 
wreck  a  far  better  historian  ;  and  the  imaginative  power 
and  talent  for  pictorial  embellishment  which  make  his 
work  so  attractive  to  the  young  and  inexperienced  inevita- 
bly involve  him  in  serious  difficulty  the  moment  a  true 
historic  test  is  applied  to  any  of  his  flowery  pages.  AVill 
Mr.  Fronde  seriously  apply  such  a  test,  and  explain  to  us, 
for  instance,  his  manipulation  of  Mary  Stuart's  letter  of 
April  4,  1566,  and  give  us  the  original  language  of  the 
passages  which  we  have  denounced  as  unauthorized  ?  Will 
he  explain  his  remarkable  arrangement  of  the  members 
of  the  phrase  at  his  page  261,  vol.  viii.,  "  It  will  be  known 
hereafter,"  etc.?  Will  he  throw  some  light  on  the  peine 
forte  et  dure  —  but  no,  we  will  not  ask  that.  We  acquit 
Mr.  Froude  of  any  intention  to  misrepresent  in  that  in- 
stance. It  was  merely  a  blunder  arising  from  a  strange 
ignorance  of  the  laws  of  England.  Will  he  clear  up  the 
misleading  paucity  of  dates  in  the  Jedburgh  story  ?  Will 
he  find  some  authority  less  untrustworthy  than  Buchanan 
for  the  poisoning  story,  and  for  a  hundred  other  statements 
•repudiated  by  all  respectable  historians  ?    Will  he  show 


86 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


us  how  it  is  that  "  he  feared  for  his  life''  is  the  English 
translation  of  "  II  prend  ime  peur  de  recevoir  une  honte," 
and  how  it  is  that  the  meanings  given  in  his  text  of  nu- 
merous Spanish  and  French  passages,  which  he  avoids 
translating,  are  so  often  at  daggei-s  drawn  with  the  lan- 
guage of  the  originals  ?  How  it  is  that  he  describes  a  let- 
ter from  Mary  to  Elizabeth  as  one  "  she  wrote  with  her  own 
hand,  fierce,  dauntless,  and  haughty,"  when,  in  the  letter, 
Mary  expressly  excuses  herself  to  Elizabeth  for  not  writ- 
ing with  her  own  hand  ?  How  it  is  that  he  coolly  substi- 
tutes "  fled  from  "  for  departed,  "  lords  "  for  ladies,  "  four 
thousand  ruffians  "  for  four  thousand  gentlemen  f  How  it 
is  that  —  but  space  fails. 

In  these  cases,  we  wish  to  be  distinctly  understood  that 
we  do  not  charge  Mr.  Froude  with  forgery.  Heaven  for- 
bid !  We  readily,  and  with  reason,  find  a  more  charitable 
explanation. 

There  are  persons  whose  sense  of  sound,  or  color,  or  light, 
or  integrity,  or  morality,  is  either  obtuse  or  totally  absent. 
We  have  known  people  who  could  not  distinguish  "  Mary 
in  heaven "  from  "  Boyne  Water ; "  we  have  heard  of 
others  to  whom,  from  color  blindness,  white  and  scarlet 
were  identical ;  of  others  who,  in  lying,  believed  they  spoke 
the  truth  ;  and  others  who,  like  Mr.  Froude,  could  not, 
for  their  lives,  repeat  or  correctly  quote  the  words  of  third 
persons ;  whose  minds,  in  short,  "  had  not  yet  succeeded 
in  grasping  the  nature  of  inverted  commas." 

For  the  last  time,  we  ask  Mr.  Froude  for  some  contem- 
porary proof  that  the  Earl  of  Bedford,  or  any  one  else, 
wrote  to  Cecil,  speaking  of  Mary  Stuart,  "  She  said  she 
could  have  no  peace  till  she  had  Murray's  or  Chatelhe- 
rault's  head." 

We  have  now  obtained  from  the  English  Record  Office 
a  certified  copy  of  the  Bedford  letter  in  question,  and  ask 
for  it  the  reader's  special  attention  :  — 


THE  OFFICIAL  RECORD. 


87 


STAMP. 

PUBLIC 
RECORDS. 

STAMP. 

PUBLIC 
RECORDS. 

PUBLIC  RECORD  OFFICE  COPY. 
Stale  Papers  Foreign.    Elizabeth,  1565.    Vol.  80,  No.  1231. 

After  my  hartie  comenda- 
cons,  I  have  sent"  the  money 
to  the  Lords  as  moche  as  the 
Q.  pleas'"  was  they  should  have 
Cap°®  Brickwell  I  sent  w*  the 
same,  and  therew*all  to  under- 
stande  thoroughely  them  and 
their  estate  he  is  now  retoiirned 
and  bringeth  me  from  the  Erie 
of  Murrey  the  most  courteous 
and  frendely  Ire  that  ev  I  re- 
ceyved  in  my  lifFe  From  any 
other  of  the  Lords  he  brought 
none,  nor  nothing  els  but  most  hartie  thanks,  he  founde 
them  all  very  pensive  and  dismaied  men  desperate  alto- 
gether of  their  weldoing,  or  of  any  good  successe  in  this 
matter.  They  are  so  farre  entred  into  the  bryers  and  see- 
ing so  litell  helpe  come,  as  knowe  not  otherwise  how  to  deale 
or  drifte  for  themselves  then  by  retyring  towards  Englande 
and  therof  also  they  do  not  all  agree  for  the  Duke  wold 
into  Germany  or  Italia  and  other  otherwhere  and  being 
but  a  fevve  in  nombre  they  are  allmost  of  so  many  sundry 
opinions,  all  mislike  moche  themselves  for  trusting  so  moche 
to  o''  aide,  arfti  do  not  a  litell  mervaile  what  should  be  the 
cause  that  Melvyn  cometh  not  awaye  with  one  answere  or 
other.  The  Duke  was  talkd  w*  all  by  Cap°®  Brickwell,  and 
spake  very  slenderly  of  o""  dealings,  and  as  I  must  saye 
truely  to  you  not  wisely.  Therle  of  Murrey  maketh  Eng- 
lande his  last  ankerholde,  and  as  he  hathe  so  written  to  me 
meaneth  to  come,  and  that  even  shortely,  for  they  are  no 
company  and  will  still  growe  fewer,  so  as  notw*standing  o^ 
aide  of  men  alredy  to  them  y^'  shall  never  be  hable  nor 
meane  not  to  encountre  w*  the  Q.  His  coming  cannot  be 
kept  secrete,  for  thoughe  he  bring  not  many  yet  will  he  not 
come  alone,  T  meane  not  at  o""  meeting  to  talke  w*  him  pri- 


88 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


vately  but  in  open  place.  The  money  he  onely  receyved  w*''^ 
came  in  verie  good  tyme  for  els  had  they  bene  scattered  ere 
nowe.  The  Countesse  his  wifFe  is  as  I  gess  by  this  tyme 
upon  her  coining  to  Barwick,  there  as  I  have  written  to  be 
delyverd  of  childe.  There  is  no  talke  of  peace  w*  that  Q. 
but  that  she  will  first  have  a  heade  of  the  Duke  or  of  the 
p]rle  of  Murrey.  In  this  hard  and  pitieful  case  stand  things 
then  and  towards  tliem  most  like  to  growe  worsse  and 
worsse,  and  all  they  saye  is  for  trusting  so  moche  upon  us. 

The  Liddesdale  men  I  meane  the  Elwoods,  hold  out  well 
and  work  still  for  us  all  that  they  maye,  wherin  the  L.  War- 
den here  hathe  traveled  very  moche  to  cause  them  so  to  do, 
he  kepeth  them  together  at  a  place  called  the  Hermitage, 
and  notw*standing  the  working  of  the  Erie  of  Bothevvell  all 
that  he  can  to  the  contrary. 

I  assure  you  my  L.  Warden  here,  deserveth  great  thanks 
for  his  traveling  in  this  sorte  w*  them.  It  were  well  done 
that  he  were  encouraged  to  contynew  his  well  doing  by 
some  gentle  Ire  thence.  And  so  praieng  you  to  hasten  ann- 
swere  of  all  matters  heretofore  now  lately  written,  w*  most 
hartie  thanks  I  ende  and  byd  you  as  my  selfe  Farewell 
From  An  wick  this  5"^  of  Octobere  1565 

yo'"'  right  assured 
F.  Bedford. 

I  feare  me  that  the  Mr  Maxevvill  is  not  sure  and  stedfast  in 
this  matter  to  them  there,  I  shall  lerne  more  and  shall 
shewe  you  by  my  next 

(Indorsed)  (Addressed) 
S  'H  To  the  Honorable  my  verie  good 

Frende  S'"   Wilm    Cecill  Knight 


^  pq  Principall  Secretary  to  the  Q.  Ma*'® 

sell. 


•§  and  one  of  her  H.  Privie  Coun- 


I  certify  that  the  foregoing  is  a  true  and  authentic  copy. 

H.  J.  Tharpe,  . 
Assist.  Keeper  of  Public  Records. 

Uh  February,  1871. 


THE  BEDFORD  LETTER. 


89 


It  will  be  perceived  the  letter  is  mainly  taken  up  with 
the  Earl  of  Bedford's  statement  as  to  the  report  made  to 
him  by  Captain  Brickwell,  an  officer  under  his  command,  of 
what  the  latter  saw  and  heard  in  the  rebel  camp,  and  con- 
cerning the  condition  of  Murray  and  the  other  rebel  lords. 
Captain  Brickwell  found  them  "  very  pensive  and  dismaied 
men,  desperate  altogether  of  their  weldoing."  They  mur- 
mur at  the  "  litell  helpe  "  Elizabeth  has  sent  them.  Murray 
is  downcast,  Chatelherault  is  angry,  and  from  them  Brick- 
well receives  his  information  that  "  There  is  no  talke  of 
peace  with  that  Q."  etc.  They  have  been  instigated  to 
undertake  this  rebellion  by  Elizabeth,  and  by  her  promises 
to  aid  them.  They  have  been  disappointed,  and  now 
"  spake  very  slenderly  of  our  dealings."  In  short,  they 
make,  in  vulgar  phrase,  "  a  poor  mouth,"  in  order,  by  their 
losses  and  supposed  risk  of  life,  to  strengthen  their  claim 
upon  Elizabeth's  sympathies  and  treasury  —  two  very  unex- 
pansive  institutions. 

We  are,  therefore,  really  at  a  loss  to  understand  how  it  is 
that  Mr.  Froude,  after  his  attention  had  been  called  to  this 
letter,  could  make  the  extraordinary  statement  that  Bed- 
ford "  could  only  have  written  on  the  authority  of  Ran- 
dolph." 

"There  is  no  talke  of  peace  with  that  Q.,"  clearly 
comes  directly  from  the  rebel  lords,  being  of  their  own  in- 
vention and  by  them  put  in  Mary  Stuart's  mouth.  Mr. 
Froude  understands  this  as  well  as  any  one,  and  yet  .he 
makes  this  passage  his  authority  for  the  statements  that 
"  at  least  she  would  not  lose  the  chance  of  revenge  upon 
her  brother,"  and  for  the  highly  wrought  psychological 
passage  already  cited.^ 

1  Ante,  p.  10. 


CHAPTER  IX. 


QUEEN  ELIZABETH  AND  THE  EARL  OF  MURRAY. 

"  Through  her  whole  reign  she  was  a  dissembler,  a  pretender,  a  hypo- 
crite."— LoKD  Brougham. 

"For  his  own  commoditie,"  as  John  Knox  has  it, 
Murray  had,  with  aid  of  English  gold  and  Elizabeth's  am- 
bassador, spun  his  web  of  treason  in  the  dark,  and  when 
he  thought  it  could  be  done  successfully,  had  rebelled 
against  his  sovereign.  His  effort  failing,  he  fled  to  England, 
as  we  have  seen,  and  Elizabeth  had  a  very  unwelcome  guest 
within  her  gates.  Here  is  Mr.  Fronde's  version  of  these 
facts  :  "  To  sav^  England  from  a  Catholic  revolution,  and 
to  save  England's  Queen  from  the  machinations  of  a  dan- 
gerous rival,  the  Earl  of  Murray  had  taken  arms  against 
his  sovereign."  The  result  was  that  "  he  found  himself  a 
fugitive  and  an  outlaw,"  and  "  Elizabeth  had  to  encounter 
from  Murray  himself  the  most  inconvenient  remonstrances," 
for  "  Murray,  a  noble  gentleman  of  stainless  honor,  was  not 
a  person  to  sit  down  patiently  as  the  dupe  of  timidity  and 
fraud."  We  shall  presently  see  in  Murray's  whipt-spaniel 
performance  in  presence  of  Elizabeth,  to  what  extent  he 
could  "  sit  down  patiently." 

"  Mary  Stuart,"  continues  our  historian,  "  having  failed  to 
take  or  kill  Murray,  was  avenging  herself  on  his  wife  ;  and 
the  first  news  which  Murray  heard  after  reaching  England 
was  that  Lady  Murray  had  been  driven  from  her  home,  was 
wandering  shelterless  in  the  woods,"  etc.    (viii.  216.) 

The  riddle  of  this  story  should  be  read  together  with 
this  other  (viii.  251),  although  the  two  are  so  far  apart  that 


QUEEN  ELIZABETH'S  CONTRIBUTION. 


91 


no  connection  between  them  would  at  first  be  suspected. 
Mary  "  called  Randolph  before  the  Council,  charged  him 
with  holding  intercourse  with  her  rebels,  and  bade  him  be- 
gone." Here  is  the  explanation.  In  February,  Randolph 
had  sent  Elizabeth's  little  contribution  in  aid  of  the  rebel- 
lion,—  three  sealed  bags,  each  containing  3,000  crowns, — 
to  be  delivered  to  Murray's  wife.  (Here  we  see  England's 
Queen  suffering  from  "  the  machinations  of  a  dangerous 
rival.")  The  messenger  was  one  Johnstone,  a  confidential 
agent  of  Murray,  who,  being  "  noble  and  stainless,"  had  a 
delicacy  in  personally  appearing  in  such  a  transaction.  His 
wife  took  the  post  of  danger,  received  the  money,  and  as- 
sumed the  responsibility  of  treason  by  giving  a  writing  to 
the  effect  that  the  bags  of  coin  had  been  delivered.  The 
agent  Johnstone  revealed  the  transaction,  and  Lady  Murray 
did  not  wander  about  the  woods,  but  leisurely  took  com- 
fortable refuge  with  her  English  friends  at  Berwick.  Mary 
immediately  summoned  Randolph  before  her  Council,  and 
reproached  him  with  abusing  his  official  position  by  foment- 
ing discord  and  supplying  her  rebel  subjects  with  money  , 
to  war  against  her.  Randolph  denied  the  charge,  but  was 
immediately  confronted  with  Johnstone,  silenced,  and  or- 
dered to  be  conducted  under  guard  to  the  frontier.  "  The 
opportunity  was  ill-selected,"  pronounces  Mr.  Froude,  who 
throughout  his  work  appears  to  labor  under  the  impression 
that  Mary  was  the  vassal  of  Elizabeth.  One  might  sup- 
pose that  when  an  ambassador  is  guilty  of  such  an  outrage 
as  that  of  Randolph,  the  precise  moment  to  dismiss  him  is 
when  he  is  detected  in  his  villainy.  But  this  is  not  our 
historian's  meaning.  It  must  be  constantly  borne  in  mind 
by  the  reader,  that  with  Mr.  Froude  everything  done  by 
an  enemy  of  Mary  Stuart  is  well  done,  and  infamy  becomes 
virtue. 

Randolph's  insolent  attitude  towards  Mary  is  explained 
by  his  letter  to  Leicester  and  his  certainty  of  the  execu- 
tion of  the  plot  to  assassinate  Riccio.    Although  ordered 


92 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


to  depart  by  Mary,  he  sought  to  evade  the  mandate  and  to 
dally  until  the  perpetration  of  the  murder,  and  would  not 
stir  until  a  guard  was  at  his  door  to  show  him  the  road 
to  England.  This  is  why  Mr.  Froude  finds  the  moment 
"  ill-selected  "  for  his  dismissal.^ 

Here  is  a  roseate  sketch  of  bribery,  falsehood,  and 
treason :  — 

"  Elizabeth  had  been  for  some  time  recovering  her  firmness  ;  she 
had  sent  Murray  money /or  his  private  necessities;^  in  the  mid- 
dle of  February  she  had  so  far  overcome  both  her  economy  and 
timidity  that  she  supplied  him  with  a  thousand  pounds,  '  to  be 
employed  in  the  common  cause  and  maintenance  of  religion,' 
and  before  she  had  heard  of  the  treatment  of  Randolph,  she  had 
taken  courage  to  write  with  something  of  her  old  manner  to  the 
Queen  herself."    (viii.  251.) 

And  here  a  few  words  as  to  Elizabeth's  connection  with 
this  rebellion.  The  historian  Lingard  truly  states  the 
case  :  "  She  shrank  from  the  infamy  of  being  the  aggressor 
in  a  war  which  the  rest  of  Europe  would  not  fail  to  attribute 
,  to  female  pique  and  unjustifiable  resentment."  He  might 
have  added  that  in  avoiding  that  infamy  she  rushed  into  a 
score  of  others,  if  possible,  worse.  Even  Mr.  Froude  speaks 
of  Elizabeth's  conduct  in  these  terms :  "  Elizabeth  had 
given  her  word,  but  it  was  an  imperfect  security,"  shows 
her  "  struggling  with  her  ignominy,  only  to  flounder  deeper 
into  distraction  and  dishonor,"  and  tells  us  "  she  stooped 
to  a  deliberate  lie.  De  Foix  had  heard  of  the  £3,000,^ 
and  had  ascertained  beyond  doubt  that  it  had  been  sent 
from  the  treasury ;  yet,  when  he  questioned  Elizabeth  about 
it,  she  took  refuge  behind  Bedford,  and  swore  she  had  sent 

1  Lodge  describes  Randolph  as  "of  a  dark,  intriguing  spirit,  full  of 
cunning,  and  void  of  conscience,"  and  adds,  "  Tliere  is  little  doubt  that 
the  unhappy  divisions  in  Scotland  were  chiefly  fomented  by  this  man's 
artifices  for  more  than  twenty  years  together." — Lodge's  Illustrations  of 
British  History,  vol.  i.  p.  431. 

2  Here  we  obtain  a  glimpse  of  Johnstone's  three  sealed  bags  of  specie. 
8  Another  sum  sent  to  Murray. 


REGINA  CCELI. 


93 


no  money  to  the  lords  at  all."  Further,  "  her  policy  was 
pursued  at  the  expense  of  her  honor,"  and  so  on  —  usque 
*ad  nausea?!!  —  up  to  the  time  when,  on  Murray's  arrival 
in  London  after  the  failure  of  his  foul  treachery,  Elizabeth 
sent  for  him,  "  and  arranged  in  a  private  interview  the 
comedy  which  she  was  about  to  enact."  (viii.  219.)  This 
comedy  was  his  appearance,  next  day,  before  Elizabeth, 
who,  in  the  presence  of  two  foreign  ambassadors,  delivered 
a  long  harangue  on  the  enormity  of  his  offense  in  rebel- 
ling against  his  sovereign  —  a  rebellion  gotten  up  at  her 
instigation,  and  for  which  she  had  paid  him  in  money  ! 
A  more  stupendous  budget  of  mendacity  it  would  be  diffi- 
cult to  find  anywhere  recorded,  even  taking  Mr.  Froude's 
account  of  it.  (viii.  222-224.)  Elizabeth  fitly  crowned 
this  performance  by  writing  to  Mary  with  her  own  hand  :  — 

"I  have  communicated  fully  to  Randolph  all  that  passed  at 
my  interview  with  one  of  your  subjects,  which  I  hope  will  satisfy 
you,  wishing  that  your  ears  had  heard  the  honor  and  affection 
which  I  manifested  toward  you,  to  the  complete  disproof  of  what 
is  said  that  I  supported  your  rebel  subjects  against  you  —  which 
will  ever  be  very  far  from  my  heart,  being  too  great  an  ignominy 
for  a  princess  to  tolerate,  much  more  to  do." 

Just  as  we  finish  transcribing  these  lines,  our  eye  acci- 
dentally falls  on  a  passage  in  Mr.  Froude's  eleventh  volume, 
page  20,  in  which,  speaking  of  Elizabeth's  portraits,  he 
says  she  was  sometimes  represented  "  as  the  Christian 
Regina  Coeli,  whose  nativity  fell  close  to  her  own  birthday, 
and  whose  functions,  as  the  virgin  of  Protestantism,  she  was 
supposed  to  supersede." 

We  must  here  thank  the  historian  for  a  prolonged  and 
hearty  laugh  whose  ripples  will,  we  fear,  disturb  our  work 
for  hours  to  come. 

A  few  pages  back  we  are  told  of  Elizabeth's  mendacity, 
dishonor,  and  ignominy.  Does  the  reader  suppose  that  by 
"  recovering  her  firmness,"  is  meant  that  she  would  leave 
off  lying  and  subornation  of  treason  ?    Not  at  all.    It  isi 


94 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


only  -when  she  blunders  in  her  mendacity  or  is  clumsy  in 
her  villainy  that  her  historian  becomes  anxious. 

Elizabeth  "  recovers  her  firmness  "  when  her  plots  prom-* 
ise  success.  Meantime  Mary,  as  is  admitted  in  a  moment 
of  forgetfulness,  was  "  all  unconscious  of  the  deadly  coil 
which  was  gathering  round  her."  But  Cecil,  Leicester, 
and  Elizabeth  were  fully  aware  of  it.  Nearly  a  month  be- 
fore the  murder  Randolph  writes  to  Leicester,  for  Eliza- 
beth's eye :  — 

"  I  know  that  there  are  practices  in  hand,  contrived  between 
father  and  son  (Lennox  and  Darnley),  to  come  to  the  crown 
against  her  (Mary .  Stuart's)  will.  I  know  that  if  that  take  ef- 
fect which  is  intended,  David  (Riccio),  with  the  consent  of  the 
king,  shall  have  his  throat  cut  within  these  ten  days.  Many 
things  grievouser  and  worse  than  these  are  brought  to  my  ears  ; 
yea,  of  things  intended  against  her  own  person,  which,  because  I 
think  better  to  keep  secret  than  to  write  to  Isli.  Secretary,  I  speak 
of  them  but  now  to  your  lordship." 

Warning  of  common  humanity  there  was  none.  The  re- 
sult to  Mary  was  most  certainly  to  be  the  loss  of  her  crown, 
and,  most  probably,  the  lives  of  herself  and  her  unborn 
babe.    This  is  clear  from  Randolph's  letter,    (viii.  254.) 

The  details  were  all  in  London  before  the  blow  was 
struck.  Murrai/'s  name  was  first  on  the  bond  for  the 
"slaughter  of  David."  Generally,  the  objects  of  the  con- 
spirators were  the  establishment  and  maintenance  of  reli- 
gion, the  return  of  Murray  and  the  other  rebel  lords,  the  de- 
position of  the  Queen,  and  the  elevation  of  Darnley,  "  with 
crown  matrimonial,"  to  the  vacant  throne,  where  the  "  idiot  " 
would  be  a  puppet  in  their  hands,  to  keep  there  or  break  as 
best  might  suit  them.  Riccio  had  been  Darnley's  personal 
friend,  and  had  done  everything  in  his  power  to  promote 
his  marriage  with  the  Queen,  but  could  not  be  brought  over 
to  Darnley's  views  for  obtaining  the  crown.  Conceiving 
Riccio  to  be  the  only  obstacle  in  his  way,  he  was  ready  to 
be  rid  of  him.    Darnley's  father,  Lennox,  deep  in  the  con- 


THE  MURDER  PLOT. 


95 


spiracy,  rode  to  Newcastle  with  the  bonds  (Mr.  Fronde 
says  they  were  "carried  by  swift  messengers,"  and  cannot 
see  Lennox)  for  signature  of  Murray  and  his  friends,  and, 
authorized  by  Elizabeth  (note  that  he  was  then  outlawed  in 
England),  went  on  to  London. 

Parliament  was  to  meet  in  the  first  week  of  March. 
The  attainder  of  Murray  and  the  other  rebel  lords  would 
then  be  passed  and  their  estates  forfei  ted.  Here  was  at  once 
their  motive  and  their  spur  to  prompt  action.  Mr.  Froude 
says  that  Morton  signed  "  in  a  paroxysm  of  anger  "  (viii. 
250),  but  does  not  say  that  his  price  was  the  patrimony  of 
the  earldom  of  Angus.  Riccio  was  to  be  killed  in  presence 
of  the  Queen.  He  could  have  been  "  dispatched  "  anywhere 
else,  but  the  conspirators  preferred  it  thus.  It  suits  Mr. 
Froude's  purpose  to  accept  Ruthven's  statement  that  the 
suggestion  came  from  Darnley.  It  came  from  a  man  of 
more  intelligence  than  Darnley.  The  Queen  was  then  in 
the  sixth  month  of  her  pregnancy.  Armed  men  were 
suddenly  to  rush  into  her  presence  and  slay  a  human  being 
before  her  eyes,  and  there  was  a  'probability  she  might  not 
survive  it. 

Elizabeth,  imitating  her  father  in  a  similar  transaction, 
would,  of  course,  find  herself  "  obliged  to  look  at  facts  as 
they  were  rather  than  through  conventional  forms,"  and 
the  bond  provided  that  "  failing  of  succession  of  our  sover- 
eign lady,  the  just  title  of  "  the  said  noble  prince  (Darnley) 
to  the  crown  of  Scotland  should  be  maintained." 

"  Ritzio's  name  was  not  mentioned ;  there  was  nothing  in  them 
(the  bonds)  to  show  that  more  was  intended  than  a  forcible  rev- 
olution on  the  meeting  of  Parliament  ;  and  such  as  they  were, 
they  were  promptly  signed  by  Murray  and  his  friends."  (viii. 
250.) 

Only  "a  forcible  revolution" — a  mere  trifle,  you  see. 
"  Such  as  they  were,"  for  we  could  never  consent  to  have  a 
stainless  Murray  sign  a  bond  for  assassination.  But  five 
lines  further  on  we  learn  :  "  It  need  not  be  siipposed  that 


96 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


the  further  secret  was  unknown  to  any  of  them,  but  it  was 
undesirable  to  commit  the  darker  features  of  the  plot  to 
formal  writing."  It  is  admitted  (p.  250)  that  the  English 
government  had  been  informed  a  month  beforehand  of  the 
formation  of  the  plot.  On  the  6th  of  March,  Bedford  and 
Randolph  write  to  Cecil  repeating  all  the  details  of  a  con- 
spiracy designed  with  diabolical  ingenuity  for  the  destruc- 
tion, not  only  of  Riccio,  but  of  the  Queen,  her  offspring, 
and  her  husband. 

A  general  fast  had  been  ordered  by  the  Kirk  at  Edin- 
burgh, which  drew  crowds  of  disaffected  zealots  even  from 
distant  parts  of  the  country.  It  was  noted  that  during 
the  week  the  sermons  were  on  such  lessons  and  texts  from 
the  Old  Testament  as  might  be  supposed  to  warrant  the 
slaughter  of  the  idolater,  and  God's  sudden  judgments  on 
the  enemies  of  his  chosen  people. 

Several  well  known  members  of  John  Knox's  congrega- 
tion were  in  the  conspiracy  and  present  at  the  murder.  It 
is  not  necessary  to  enter  into  the  disputed  question  of  John 
Knox's  participation  in  the  deed.  Suffice  it  to  say,  that 
he  disappeared  from  Edinburgh,  with  the  conspirators,  and 
has  himself  recorded  his  hearty  approved  of  Riccio's  as- 
sassination. 

In  his  statement  of  the  circumstances  of  the  plot  for 
the  murder,  Mr.  Froude  dwells  on  every  injurious  insinu- 
ation against  Mary  Stuart.  Referring  to  a  calumnious  in- 
vention, falsely  attributed  to  Darnley  (viii.  248),  he  is  of 
opinion  that  "  Darnley's  word  was  not  a  good  one ;  he  was 
capable  of  inventing  such  a  story;"  that  "Mary's  treatment 
of  him  went,  it  is  likely,  no  further  than  coldness  or  con- 
tempt ; "  but  nevertheless  he  strives  to  convey  the  worst 
impression  against  her.  And  this  too  in  spite  of  his  own 
admission  and  the  positive  manner  in  which  the  invention 
"  is  rejected  even  by  Mary  Stuart's  enemies. 

Malcolm  Laing,  one  of  the  most  unscrupulous  of  them, 
says:  "I  inquire  not  in  Rizzio's  familiarity  with  Mary;  of 
that  there  is  no  proof  now,  but  her  husband's  suspicions." 


DARNLEY.'S  JEALOUSY. 


97 


Tytler  says  :  "  Darnley  had  the  folly  to  become  the  dupe 
of  a  more  absurd  delusion ;  he  became  jealous  of  the 
Italian  secretary." 

Hume  speaks  of  the  belief  as  "  unreasonable,  if  not 
absurd." 

Burton  is  of  the  opinion  that  "further  than  this  (fasci- 
nating Rizzio  as  she  did  all  men)  she  is  not  likely  to  have 
gone."    (Vol.  iv.  p.  300.) 

Even  John  Knox  says  not  a  word  to  intimate  guilty  rela- 
tions between  Mary  and  Riccio.  Buchanan  alone  brougjit 
it  forward.    De  Thou  and  others  copy  him. 

The  question  is  not  seriously  controverted. 

Robertson  says :  "  Of  all  our  historians,  Buchanan  alone 
avowedly  accuses  Mary  of  a  criminal  love  for  Rizzio." 

Sir  Walter  Scott  treats  "  the  gross  impeachment "  as  "  a 
fiction  of  later  date,"  and  declares  the  Queen's  name  un- 
tainted with  reproach  till  it  was  connected  with  that  of 
Bothwell. 

The  Protestant  Episcopal  Bishop  Keith  ("Affairs  of 
Church  and  State  in  Scotland  ")  says :  "  The  vile  aspersion 
of  the  Queen's  honor,  as  entertaining  a  criminal  famil- 
iarity with  the  ugly,  ill-favored  Rizzio,  deserves  not  to  be 
regarded."    (Vol.  ii.  p.  396.) 

If  Mr.  Froude  has  a  "  vivid  pen,"  he  also  has  a  light  one. 
He  glides  delicately  over  the  character  of  the  conspiracy 
to  kill  Riccio,  and  manages  to  veil  the  real  motives,^  which 
were  political,  and  industriously  works  up  notorious  inven- 
tions aimed  at  Mary  Stuart's  character. 

1"  In  this  conspiracy,"  says  the  Scotch  historian  Robertson, "  there  is  one 
circumstance  which,  though  somewhat  detached,  deserves  not  to  be  for- 
gotten. In  the  confederacy  between  the  king  and  the  conspirators,  the 
real  intention  of  which  was  assassination,  the  preserving  of  the  Reformed 
Church  is,  nevertheless,  one  of  the  most  considerable  articles."  (Vol.  i.  p. 
373.) 


7 


CHAPTER  X. 


"  What  a  wonderful  history  it  is !  and  wonderful  indeed  is  it,  with  its 
vivid  pictures,"  etc.  —  Mrs.  Muloch  Craik. 

"  On  the  9th  of  March,  Riccio  was  murdered  in  the  presence  of  the  Queen, 
who  was  made  a  prisoner  in  her  own  palace."  —  W.  Edmonstoune  Ay- 

TOUN. 

Too  many  persons,  nowadays,  prefer  history  so  written 
as  to  be  as  "  interesting  as  a  novel."  For  such  readers, 
looking  at  it  as  a  mere  work  of  art,  and  without  reference 
to  the  facts,  the  murder  scene  is  admirably  described  by 
Mr.  Froude.  (viii.  257,  et  seq.)  One  serious  drawback  is 
his  insatiable  desire  for  embellishment.  For  the  mere  pur- 
pose of  description  none  is  needed.  The  subject  is  full  to 
overflowing  of  the  finest  dramatic  material.  The  result  of 
his  narration  is  very  remarkable.  He  skillfully  manages 
to  centre  the  reader's  sympathy  and  admiration  on  the  as- 
sassin Ruthven,  and,  with  device  of  phrase  and  glamour 
of  type,  places  the  sufferer  and  victim  of  an  infamous  bru- 
tality in  the  light  of  a  woman  who  is  merely  undergoing 
Bome  well-merited  chastisement.^  The  whole  scene  as  pic- 
tured rests  on  the  testimony  of  the  leading  assassin  (Ruth- 
ven), which,  in  defiance  of  the  plainest  rules  of  evidence, 
is  boldly  accepted  as  perfectly  authentic.  And  even  this 
testimony  is  garbled  before  it  reaches  the  historian,  for 
Chalmers  shows  (ii.  352)  that  the  account  given  as  by 
Ruthven  and  Morton,  dated  April  30th,  is  the  revised  and 
corrected  copy  of  what  they  sent  to  Cecil  on  the  2d  of 
April,  asking  him  to  make  such  changes  as  he  saw  fit  be- 

1  "  We  recoil  from  the  brutality,  alike  of  him  who  planned  and  of  those 
who  calmly  undertook  to  execute  an  action  so  brutal  and  unmanly."  —  Sir 
Walter  Scott.  ^ 


MURDER  OF  RICCIO. 


99 


fore  circulating  it  in  Scotland  and  England.  Their  note 
of  April  2d  still  exists ;  but  Mr.  Froude  does  not  allude 
to  it.  , 

Tims  we  have  the  story  from  the  chief  murderer,  amended 
and  edited  by  Cecil  and  embellished  by  Mr.  Froude,  who, 
while  admitting  that  "  the  recollection  of  a  person  who  had 
just  been  concerned  in  so  tremendous  a  scene  was  not 
likely  to  be  very  exact"  (viii.  261),  nevertheless  adopts 
the  version  of  that  person  in  preference  to  all  others.  But 
if  we  must  perforce  have  Ruthven's  (Gecil's),^  why  not  give 
it  as  it  is,  sparing  us  such  inventions  as  "  turning  on  Darn- 
ley  as  on  a  snake,"  and  "  could  she  have  trampled  him  into 
dust  upon  the  spot,  she  would  have  done  it."  Mr.  Froude 
is  all  himself  here,  and  continues  :  — 

"  Catching  sight  of  the  empty  scabbard  at  his  side,  she  asked 
him  where  his  dagger  was.  .  He  said  he  did  not  know.  '  It  loill 
he  known  hereafter;  it  shall  be  dear  blood  to  some  of  you  if  David's 
be  spilt.' " 

This  is  a  specimen  of  able  workmanship.  According  to 
Keith,  Mary's  answer  was,  "  It  will  be  known  hereafter."  ^ 
According  to  Ellis,  Mary  had  previously/  said  to  Ruthven, 
"  Well,s;iyeth  she,"  speaking  to  Ruthven,"  it  shall  be  deare 
blude  to  some  of  you."  (Ellis,  vol.  ii.  p.  212.)  Now,  let  the 
reader  observe  that  Mr.  Froude  takes  these  two  phrases, 
found  in  two  different  authorities,  addressed  separately  to 
two  different  persons,  reverses  the  order  in  which  they  are 
spoken,  and  puts  them  into  one  sentence,  which  he  makes 
]\Iary  address  to  Darnley  !    Do  you  see  why  so  much  in- 

1  "  Ruthven's  narrative  "  of  the  murder  is  a  pamphlet  written  by  Cecil, 
published  "from  aa  original  manuscript,"  at  London,  in  1699.  Cecil  be- 
ing himself  an  accessary  before  the  murder,  naturally  took  a  deep  interest 
in  its  histor}'.  It  is  on  the  strength  of  this  "  narrative  "  that  Ruthven  is  in- 
cluded by  Horace  Walpole  iii  his  Royal  and  Noble  Authors,  but  the  narra- 
tive is  not  in  the  speech  of  Ruthven.    It  is  the  careful  phrase  of  Cecil. 

2  "The  Queen  inquired  at  the  King  where  his  dagger  was?  who  an- 
swered that  he  wist  not  well.  '  Well,'  said  the  Queen,  '  it  will  be  known 
hereafter.'  "  —  Keith^  vol.  iii.  p.  273.  ^ 


100 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


dustry  and  ingenuity  should  be  exerted  ?  Because  in  this 
form  the  phrase  is  a  threat  of  murder  ;  and  thus  the  foun- 
dation is  laid  broad  and  deep  in  the  reader's  mind  for  the 
belief  that,  from  that  moment,  Mary  has  a  design  .upon 
Darnley's  life.-^ 

The  artist  of  this  mosaic  of  malice  chooses  not  to  see 
that  the  real  threat  meaning  mischief  to  Darnley,  and  after- 
wards actually  carried  out,  was  the  menace  of  Ruthven,  who, 
breaking  into  anger  at  what  he  feared  was  duplicity  on 
Darnley's  part,  told  him  that  "  what  should  follow  and  what 
blood  should  be  shed  should  come  on  his  head  and  that  of 
his  posterity,  not  on  theirs." 

As  to  Mary's  threat,  Mr.  Burton  is  of  opinion  (with  Mr, 
Froude's  version  before  him)  that,  "  if  better  vouched,'^  it 
would  be  formidable  evidence  of  her  intention,  (iv.  313, 
note.) 

One  thing  Mr.  Froude  does  state  correctly.  We  mean 
Mary's  words  when  told  that  Riccio  was  dead.  In  her 
fright,  anguish,  and  horror,  she  ejaculated,  "  Poor  David! 
good  and  faithful  servant !  May  God  have  mercy  on  your 
soul !  "  To  those  who  know  the  human  heart,  this  involun- 
tary description  of  the  precise  place  poor  David  occupied 
in  Mary's  esteem  is  more  than  answer  to  the  historian's 
indecent  note  at  page  261,  and  his  malevolent  insinuations 
on  all  his  pages.  Mary  struggled  to  the  window  to  speak 
to  armed  citizens  who  had  flocked  to  her  assistance.  "  Sit 
down  !  "  cried  one  of  the  ruffian  lords  to  her.  "  If  you  stir, 
you  shall  be  cut  into  collops,  and  flung  over  the  walls."  A 
prisoner  in  the  hands  of  these  brutal  assassins,  after  the 
unspeakable  outrages  to  which  she  had  been  subjected,  Mr. 
Froude  yet  has  the  perverse  art  of  placing  her  before  his 
readers  in  the  light  of  a  wicked  woman  deprived  of  her 

1  The  reader  may  see  (viii.  376)  where  he  tells  of  the  murder  of  Darn- 
ley,  how  effectually  Mr.  Froude  cites  his  own  invention  as  a  historical 
fact:  "  So  at  last  came  Sunday,  eleven  months  exactly  from  the  day  of 
Ritzio's  murder;  and  Mary  Stuart's  words,  that  she  Avould  never  rest  until 
that  dark  businew  was  revenged,  were  about  to  be  fulfilled." 


MURDER  OF  RICCIO. 


101 


liberty  for  her  own  good.  When  night  came  Riithven 
called  Darnley  away,  and  the  Queen  was  left  to  her  rest 
in  the  scene  of  the  late  tragedy ;  and,  adds  our  historian 
with  perfect  equanimity,  "  The  ladies  of  her  court  were  for- 
bidden to  enter,  and  Mary  Stuart  was  locked  alone  into 
her  room,  amidst  the  traces  of  the  fray,  to  seek  such  repose 
as  she  could  find."  This  is  true,  and  in  that  blood-stained 
place  she  passed  the  night  alone. 

"  They  had  caged  their  bird,"  goes  festively  on  our  histo- 
rian, his  style  never  so  sparkling  with  bright  enjoyment 
as  when  recounting  some  insult  or  outrage  to  Mary  Stuart ; 
but  they  "  knew  little  of  the  temper  which  they  had  under- 
taken to  control.  ("  Undertaken  to  control,"  is  here  posi- 
tively delicious  !)  "  Behind  that  grace  of  form  there  lay  a 
nature  like  a  panther's,  merciless  and  beautiful."  She  is 
first  a  snake,  then  a  bird,  now  a  panther,  (viii.  265.)  We 
have  seen  a  panther's  skin  admired,  but  we  never  before 
heard  that  the  animal  had  a  beautiful  nature.  Such  are  the 
reflections  suggested  to  Mr.  Froude's  sympathetic  mind  by 
the  horrible  scenes  he  has  just  described.  One  instinctively 
trembles  for  those  lambs,  the  lords,  with  such  a  panther 
near  them.  All  this  time  Mr.  Froude  takes  no  further 
notice  of  Mary's  physical  condition  than  to  treat  the  neces- 
sary results,  which,  almost  miraculously,  were  not  fatal,  as 
"  trick  and  policy."    (viii.  266.)    The  Queen  was  then  in 

1  The  following  criticism  has  been  thrust  upon  us  touching  this  passage: 
"  No,  he  was  not  killed  in  that  room  but  outside."  Our  volunteer  friend 
is  perhaps  ignorant  of  the  fact  that  George  Douglas  stabbed  Riccio  in  the 
Queen's  presence,  and  that  Ker  of  Faudonside  held  a  pistol  to  her  breast. 
These  two  were,  therefore,  exempted  from  the  pardon  extended  to  the  other 
murderers.  He  is  also  probably  not  aware  that  when  the  "  slaughter  of 
Davie"  was  finished,  Ruthven  again  intruded  himself  into  the  Queen's  pres- 
ence, this  time  with  garments  stained  with  the  blood,  not  only  of  Riccio, 
but  of  his  own  associates,  who  in  their  blind  fury  had  stabbed  each  other  as 
well  as  their  victim.  He  can  now  probably  understand  why  we  speak  of 
"  that  blood-stained  place."  We  would  also  remind  him  that  serious  histor- 
ical scholars  really  look  upon  Henry  VUI.  as  something  of  a  tyrant,  and 
have  long  ceased  to  designate  Mary  Tudor  as  "Bloody  Mary."  The  epi- 
thet is  in  vogue  in  the  "  lower  form."  ^ 


102 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


the  sixth  month  of  her  pregnancy,  and  the  possible  conse- 
quences of  the  horrible  tragedy  thus  thrust  suddenly  before 
her  eyes  were  not  unforeseen.  The  conspirators  in  their 
bonds  had  expressly  provided  for  the  contingency  of  her 
death} 

And  now  we  are  shown  Mary  forming  the  wicked  design 
of  escaping,  of  actually  eloping  with  her  husband !  She  is 
described  as  playing,  and  "working  upon  him,"  and  even 
appealing  to  him  through  the  child  —  his  child."  Mr. 
Froude  further  charges  that  the  Queen  had  wormed  the 
secret  from  Darnley,  who  told  her  who  were  in  the  plot ; 
that  she  then  "  played  upon  him  like  an  instrument,"  — 
"  she  showed  him  that  if  he  remained  with  the  lords  he 
would  be  a  tool  in  their  hands." 

Really  one  stands  appalled  at  the  revelation  of  such 
wickedness.  But  there  is  worse  to  come.  "  As  the  dusk 
closed  in,  a  troop  of  horse  appeared  on  the  road  from 
Dunbar.  In  a  few  moments  more  the  Earl  of  Murray  was 
at  the  gate."  (viii.  267.)  He  had  ridden,  not  from  Dunbar, 
but  from  Newcastle,  where,  like  a  less  distinguished  poli- 
tician of  modern  times,  he  had  been  "  watching  and  waiting 
just  over  the  Border  "  for  the  signal  of  success  in  the  mur- 
der, and  from  which  place  he  wrote  to  Cecil,  just  before 
starting  (March  8),  that  he  and  the  rest  of  his  company 
were  "  summoned  home  for  the  weal  of  religion." 

Murray  was  the  real  head  of  this  murder  plot,  and  the 
negotiator  between  the  assassins  and  the  English  govern- 
ment. Bedford  and  Randolph,  writing  from  Scotland  to  the 
English  Privy  Council  (March  27,  1566),  transmit  a  full  list 
of  the  conspirators,  and  add,  "  My  Lord  of  Murray,  by  a 
special  servant  sent  unto  us,  desireth  your  honour's  favor 
for  these  nobill  men  as  his  dear  friends  and  such  as  for  his 
sake  hath  given  this  adventure.'' 

1  "For  she  being  big  -with  child,"  says  Melville,  who  was  then  at  Holy- 
rood,  "it  appeared  to  be  done  to  destroy  both  her  and  her  child;  for  they 
might  have  killed  the  said  Eiccio  in  any  other  part  at  any  time  they 
pleased."  —  Memoirs^  p.  66. 


MURRAY  VOTES  "DEATH." 


103 


And  the  letter  is  marked  as  "  touching  the  death  of 
David  Rizzio  and  ^lurray's  privity  thereto."  Mr.  Froude 
is  too  hasty  in  his  narrative  here,  and  neglects  to  tell  us 
that  on  entering  the  city  from  the  road  to  Dunbar,  Murray 
rode  with  his  troop  straight  to  the  parliament  house.  It 
was  the  day  he  was  summoned  to  appear  there  or  suffer 
attainder.  That  was  part  of  his  business  in  Edinburgh ;  and 
he  expressed  great  surprise'  on  hearing  that  Darnley,  with- 
out any  authority,  had  prorogued  the  Parliament,  and  that 
Riccio  had  been  killed. 

Then,  Mary  is  "  the  accomplished  actress  ; "  but  Murray 
has  "  a  free  and  generous  nature."  "  The  depth  of  her  fall 
touched  him,  and  he  shed  tears."  Who  is  acting  here  ? 
We  might  give  some  facts  as  stated  by  Mary  Stuart  in  a 
letter  written  at  this  time,  but  as  Mr.  Froude  warns  us  that 
such  a  letter  is  a  "  suspected  source,"  we  refrain.  Ruthven, 
stained  with  the  blood  of  the  Laird  of  Kincleugh,  whom  he 
had  slain  to  prevent  his  gaining  the  favorable  decision  of 
the  judges  in  a  lawsuit,  dripping  with  the  slaughter  of 
Riccio,  and  disgraced  by  his  foul  outrage  on  a  lady  and  his 
sovereign,  is,  on  the  contrary,  for  Mr.  Froude,  a  perfectly 
competent  and  credible  witness.  That  night  there  was  a 
conclave  of  the  assassins,  and  on  the  question  of  Mary's 
life  or  death,  Murray  voted  for  her  death,  "otherwise  there 
could  be  no  security  for  religion  if  she  were  restored  to  regal 
authority."  (Blackwood's  "  Life  of  Mary,"  Maitland  Club 
edition.)  By  religion  he  meant  the  church  lands  they  had 
appropriated.  Murray,  "  free  and  generous,"  further  said 
that  delays  were  dangerous,  and  "  there  was  no  time  to 
dally." 

"  Some  measure  of  this  sort "  (death  or  imprisonment),  says 
Mr.  Froude,  philosophically,  "  had  heen  implied  in  the  very 
nature  of  their  enterprise'^  (viii.  268)  ;  but  it  appears  that, 
"  fool  and  coward  as  they  knew  Darnley  to  be,  they  had  not 
fathomed  the  depth  of  his  imbecility  and  baseness." 

And  now  Mary  escapes  from  the  hands  of  her  would-be 


104 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


assassins,  leaving  Mr.  Froude  utterly  inconsolable,  but  for 
the  fact  that  her  midnight  ride  gives  him  (viii.  270)  the 
opportunity  of  executing  (tempo  agitato)  a  spirited  fanta- 
sia on  his  historic  lyre  in  the  description  of  the  gallop 
of  the  fleeing  cavalcade.^  It  sounds  like  a  faint  echo  of 
Burger's  "  Lenore."  Then  he  gives  credit  without  stint  to 
Mary's  iron  fortitude  and  intellectual  address.  He  is  entirely 
too  liberal  in  this  regard.  Instead  of  riding  "  away,  away, 
past  Seton,"  she  stopped  there  for  refreshments  and  the 
escort  of  two  hundred  armed  cavaliers  under  Lord  Seton, 
who  was  advised  of  her  coming.  Then,  too,  the  letter  she 
"  wrote  with  her  own  hand,  fierce,  dauntless,  and  haughty," 
to  Elizabeth,  and  which  Mr.  Froude  so  minutely  describes 
—  "  The  strokes  thick,  and  slightly  uneven  from  excite- 
ment, but  strong,  firm,  and  without  sign  »f  trembling  ! " 
This  insanity  for  the  picturesque  and  romantic  would  wreck 
a  far  better  historian.  The  prosaic  fact  is,  that  although, 
as  Mr.  Froude  states,  the  letter  may  be  seen  in  the  Rolls 
House,  Mary  Stuart  did  not  write  it  It  was  written  by  an 
amanuensis,  the  salutation  and  signature  alone  being  in  her 
hand.  This  question  was,  in  1869,  the  subject  of  some  con- 
troversy, in  Paris  and  London,  and  M.  Wiesener,  a  dis- 
tinguished French  historical  writer,  requested  Messrs. 
Joseph  Stevenson  and  A.  Crosby,  of  the  Record  Ofiice,  to 
examine  the  letter  and  give  their  opinion.  Their  reply 
was,  "  The  body  of  the  document  is  most  certainly  not  in 
Mary's  handwriting." 

But,  after  all,  there  was  no  occasion  for  controversy,  and 
still  less  for  Mr.  Froude's  blunder.    If  he  had  ever  read 

1  *'  The  moon  was  clear  and  full."  "  The  Queen  with  incredible  animosity 
was  mounted  en  croup  behind  Sir  Arthur  Erskine,  upon  a  beautiful  English 
double  gelding,"  "the  King  on  a  courser  of  Naples;"  and  "then  away, 
away  —  past  Restalriug,  past  Arthur's  Seat,  across  the  bridge  and  across 
the  field  of  Musselburgh,  past  Seton,  past  Prestonpans,  fast  as  their  horses 
could  speed;"  "six  in  all  —  their  majesties,  Erskine,  Traquair,  and  a 
chamberer  of  the  Queen."  "  In  two  hours  the  heavy  gates  of  Dunbar  had 
closed  behind  them,  and  Mary  Stuart  was  safe." 


LETTER  TO  ELIZABETH. 


105 


the  letter  (three  printed  octavo  pages,  LabanofF,  ^  vol.  i.  p. 
335),  he  would  have  seen  that  Mary  said,  — 

"  We  thought  to  have  written  you  this  letter  with  our  own 
hand,  that  thereby  you  might  have  better  understood  all  our 
meaning  and  taken  more  familiarly  therewith ;  but  of  truth  we 
are  so  tired  and  ill  at  ease,  what  through  riding  of  twenty  miles 
in  five  hours  of  the  night  as  with  the  frequent  sickness  and  indis- 
position by  occasion  of  our  child,  that  we  could  not  at  this  time, 
as  we  were  willing  to  have  done." 

"  Twenty  miles  in  two  hours,"  says  Mr.  Froude.  Twenty 
miles  in  five  hours,  modestly  writes  Mary  Stuart^  Fortu- 
nately, we  have  been  warned  by  Mr.  Froude  against  testi- 
mony from  that  "  suspected  source  "  —  Mary  Stuart's  let- 
ters. 

An  interesting  example  of  curious  historical  handicraft 
occurs  but  a  few  pages  after  the  letter  which  the  Queen  did 
not  write  from  Dunbar.  Our  historian  professes  to  give 
the  substance  of  a  letter  of  Mary  Stuart  written  to  Eliza- 
beth after  her  return  to  Edinburgh. 

Here  is  the  letter,  side  by  side  with  Mr.  Froude's  version 
of  it.^  We  select  this  out  of  numerous  cases,  for  the  reason 
that  LabanofF  is  more  readily  accessible  than  other  author- 
ities treated  in  like  manner  by  Mr.  Froude. 

MR.  FROUDE'S  STATEMENT         TRANSLATION  OF  THE 

ORIGINAL  LETTER. 

Of  the  contents  of  a  letter  of 
April  4th,  1566,  from  Mary      "Edinburgh,  ^;)n7  4,  1566.'* 
Stuart  to    Queen   Elizabeth.       (The  opening  paragraph  is 
(See  vol.  viii.  p.  282.)  of  formal  salutation  and  compli- 

ment and  acknowledged  recep- 
"  In  an  autograph  letter  of  pas-  tion  of  Elizabeth's  "favorable 
sionate  gratitude,  Mary  Stuart  dispatch "  by  Melville.)  3 
placed  herself,  as  it  were,  under  "  When  Melville  arrived,  he 
her  sister's  protection  ;  she  told  found  me  but  lately  escaped 
her  that,  in  tracing  the  history    from  the  hands  of  the  greatest 

1  See  Appendix  No.  5.  2  Labanoff,  vol.  vii.  p.  300. 

8  Sir  Robert  Melville,  Mary's  ambassador  to  Elizabeth.  She  could  not 
have  made  a  more  imprudent  choice.  He  was  one  of  the  worst  traitors 
about  her,  and  in  reality  the  agent  of  the  conspirators  and  of  Murray. 


106 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


of  the  late  conspii-acy,  slie  had 
found  that  the  lords  had  in- 
tended to  imprison  her  for  life  ; 
and  if  England  or  France  came 
to  her  assistance,  they  had 
meant  to  kill  her.'  She  im- 
plored Elizabeth  to  shut  her  ears 
to  the  calumnies  which  they  loould 
spread  against  her,  and  icith  en- 
gaging frankness  she  hegged  that 
the  past  might  he  forgotten  ;  she 
had  experienced  too  deeply  the 
ingratitude  of  those  by  whom 
she  was  surrounded  to  allow  her- 
self to  be  tempted  any  more  into 
dangerous  enterprises;  for  her 
own  part,  she  was  resolved  never 
to  give  offense  to  her  good  sister 
again  ;  nothing  should  be  wanting 
to  restore  the  happy  relations 
which  had  once  existed  between 
them ;  and  should  she  recover 
safely  from  her  confinement,  she 
hoped  that  in  the  summer  Eliza- 
beth would  make  a  progress  to 
the  north,  and  that  at  last  she 
might  have  an  opportunity  of 
thanking  her  in  person  for  her 
kindness  and  forbearance. 

"This  letter  was  sent  by  the 
hands  of  a  certain  Thornton,  a 
confidential  agent  of  Mary 
Stuart,  who  had  been  employed 
on  messages  to  Rome.  '  A  very 
evil  and  naughty  person,  whom 
I  pray  you  not  to  believe,'  was 
Bedford's  credential  for  him  in 
a  letter  of  the  1st  of  April  to 
Cecil.  He  was  on  his  way  to 
Rome  again  on  this  present  oc- 
casion. 


traitors  on  earth,  in  the  manner 
in  which  the  bearer  will  com- 
municate, with  a  true  account 
of  their  most  secret  plot,  which 
was,  that  even  in  case  the  es- 
caped lords  and  other,  nobles, 
aided  by  you  or  by  any  other 
prince,  undertook  to  rescue  me, 
they  would  cut  me  in  pieces  and 
throw  me  over  the  wall.  Judge 
for  yourself  the  cruel  undertak- 
ings of  subjects  against  her  who 
can  sincerely  boast  that  she 
never  did  them  harm.  Since 
then,  however,  our  good  sub- 
jects have  counseled  with  us, 
ready  to  offer  their  lives  in  sup- 
port of  justice  ;  and  we  have, 
therefore,  returned  to  this  city 
to  chastise  some  of  its  people 
guilty  of  this  great  crime. 

"  Meantime,  we  remain  in  this 
castle,  as  our  messenger  will 
more  fully  give  you  to  under- 
stand. 

Above  all  other  things,  I  would 
especially  pray  you  carefully  to 
see  that  yovu'  agents  on  the  Bor- 
der comply  with  your  good  in- 
tentions towards  me,  and,  abid- 
ing by  our  treaty  of  peace,  ex- 
pel those  who  have  sought  my 
life  from  their  territory,  where 
the  leaders  in  this  noted  act  are 
as  well  received  as  if  your  in- 
tention were  the  worst  possi- 
ble (la  pire  du  monde},  and  the 
very  reverse  of  what  I  know  it 
to  be. 

"  I  have  also  heard  that  the 
Count  (Earl)  of  Morton  is  with 


LETTER  TO  ELIZABETH. 


107 


"  The  public  in  Scotland  sup- 
posed that  he  was  sent  to  con- 
sult the  pope  on  the  possibility 
of  divorcing  Darnley,  and  it  is 
remarkable  that  the  Queen  of 
Scots  at  the  close  of  her  own 
letter  desired  Elizabeth  to  give 
credit  to  him  on  some  secret 
matter  which  he  would  com- 
municate to  her.  She  perhaps 
hoped  that  Elizabeth  would  now 
assist  her  in  the  dissolution  of 
a  marriage  which  she  had  been 
so  anxious  to  prevent." 


you.  I  beg  of  you  to  arrest 
and  send  him  to  me,  or  at  least 
compel  him  to  return  to  Scot- 
land, by  depriving  him  of  safe- 
guard in  England.  Doubtless 
he  will  not  fail  to  make  false 
statements  to  excuse  himself ; 
statements  which  you  will  find 
neither  true  nor  probable.  I 
ask  of  you,  my  good  sister,  to 
oblige  me  in  all  these  matters, 
with  the  assurance  that  I  have 
experienced  so  much  ingrati- 
tude from  my  own  people  that 
/  shall  never  offend  by  a  similar 
fault.  And  to  fully  affirm  our 
original  friendship,  I  would  ask 
of  you  in  any  event  (quoique 
Dieu  m'envoie)  to  add  the  favor 
of  standing  as  godmother  for 
my  child.  I  moreover  hope 
that,  if  I  should  recover  by  the 
month  of  July,  and  you  should 
make  your  progress  as  near  to 
my  territory  as  I  am  informed 
you  will,  to  go,  if  agreeable,  and 
thank  you  myself,  which  above 
all  things  I  desire  to  do.  (Then 
follow  apologies  for  bad  writing, 
for  which,  she  says,  her  condi- 
tion must  excuse  her,  the  usual 
compliments  in  closing  a  let- 
ter, and  wishes  for  Elizabeth's 
health  and  prosperity.) 

"  Postscript.  I  beseech  your 
kindness  in  ^  matter  I  have 
charged  the  bearer  to  ask  you 
for  me ;  and  furthermore,  I  will 
soon  write  you  specially  (et  cm 
resteje  vous  depecTierai  bientot  ex- 


108 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


pres),  to  thank  you  and  to  know 
your  intention,  if  it  pleases  you, 
to  send  me  some  other  minister, 
whom  I  may  receive  as  resident, 
who  would  be  more  desirous  of 
promoting  our  friendship  than 
Randall  i  has  been  found  to  be." 

"We  leave  the  reader  to  form  his  own  estimate  of  this 
method  of  writing  history.  Instead  of  a  letter  of  "  pas- 
sionate gratitude,"  written  spontaneously,  as  insinuated,  it 
turns  out  to  be  the  answer  to  a  dispatch  just  received  from 
Elizabeth.  Mary's  attitude  and  language  are  dignified 
and  independent,  and  the  missive,  so  far  from  having  any 
prayer  for  forbearance  in  its  tone,  is  plainly  one  of  com- 
plaint and  warning  to  Elizabeth,  couched,  it  is  true,  in 
terms  of  politeness.  The  main  subject,  "  above  all  other 
things,"  is  the  hospitable  reception  accorded  to  Riccio's 
murderers  in  England,  and  l^jlzabeth  is  delicately  but 
emphatically  reminded  of  her  duty  and  of  the  violation 
of  it  by  her  border  agents.  The  passages  of  Mr.  Froude's 
version  marked  in  italics  have  no  existence  in  Mary's  letter, 
and  are  of  his  own  invention.  Mary  Stuart  says  that  she 
has  experienced  so  much  ingratitude  from  her  own  (peo- 
ple) that  she  would  never  offend  any  one  by  similarly  sin- 
ning. (J'ai  tant  eprouve  Vingratitude  des  miens  que  je 
rH off enserai  jamais  de  semhlahle  peche.)  Mr.  Froude  makes 
of  this  the  strange  translation  that  she  had  experienced 
too  deeply  the  ingratitude,  etc.,  "to  allow  herself  to  be 
tempted  any  more  into  dangerous  enterprises."  What  dan- 
gerous enterprises  ?  The  murder  of  Riccio  ?  Was  she 
guilty  of  that  too  ?  Was  it  her  midnight  escape  ?  Mr. 
Froude  alone  has  the  secret !  And  then  the  postscript  ? 
Randolph  had  not  only  offended,  but  deeply  injured  her, 
and  she  wishes  Elizabeth  to  understand  that  he  must  not 
be  sent  back  to  Scotland. 

1  His  name  was  Randall  —  not  Randolph,  as  he  was,  and  is  usually 
called. 


MURDER  OF  BLACK. 


109 


It  is  found  "  remarkable  "  that  Mary,  in  her  postscript, 
desires  Elizabeth  to  receive  communication  of  some  verbal 
matter  (not  secret,  as  stated)  from  the  messenger.  But  the 
same  request  occurs  twice  in  the  body  of  the  letter.  Mr. 
Froude  is,  of  course,  accurately  informed  as  to  the  hidden 
meaning  of  the  postscript,  and  settles  the  matter  with 
what  "  public  opinion  supposed,"  and  his  usual  "  perhaps." 

This  is  also  an  invention  of  the  historian.  He  supposes 
the  supposition  !  Then,  too,  his  "  evil  and  naughty  person  " 
is  uncalled  for ;  for  we  know  that  it  was  Bedford's  busi- 
ness, as  it  is  this  historian's  calling,  to  judge  any  messenger 
of  Mary  Stuart  to  be  "  evil  and  naughty."  In  all  this,  the 
intelligent  reader  will  see  that,  as  Mr.  Froude  (viii.  261) 
lays  the  foundation  of  a  plan  of  revenge  by  Mary  against 
Darnley,  so  he  here  strives  to  fasten  upon  her  the  resolu- 
tion of  obtaining  a  divorce,  all  going  to  make  cumulative 
evidence  to  be  used  when  we  come  to  the  Darnley  murder. 
"  Deep,  sir ;  deep  !  " 

But  there  is  a  more  serious  aspect  to  this  matter.  For 
three  centuries  this  Mary  Stuart  question  has  been  a  vexed 
one  among  historians,  and  the  never-ending  theme  of  acri-. 
monious  controversy.  What  prospect  is  there  of  reach- 
ing any  solution  if  the  subject  continues  to  be  treated  as 
we  find  it  in  the  work  before  us  ?  So  far  from  settling  any 
question  in  dispute,  or  even  solving  any  of  the  numerous 
secondary  problems  underlying  the  main  issue,  Mr.  Froude, 
by  his  violent  partisanship,  tortured  citation,  paltering  with 
the  sense  while  tampering  with  the  text  of  authorities,  at- 
tribution of  false  motives,  and  a  scandalous  wealth  of 
abusive  epithets,  greatly  grieves  the  most  judicious  of 
those  who  condemn  Mary  Stuart,  inspires  with  renewed 
confidence  those  who  believe  that  she  was  a  woman  more 
sinned  against  than  sinning,  and  begets  the  conviction  that 
the  cause  must  be  bad  indeed  which  needs  such  handling. 

The  murder  of  Black,  a  Catholic  priest,  in  the  city  of 
Edinburgh  on  the  same  night  that  Riccio  was  killed,  is  but 


110 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


seldom  alluded  to  by  historians,  probably  for  the  reason 
that  it  indicated  the  participation  of  the  zealots  of  the  Kirk 
in  the  conspiracy,  and  was  not,  moreover,  necessarily  con- 
nected with  the  history  of  Mary  Stuart.  But  Mr.  Froude, 
unfortunately  for  himself,  has  seized  on  the  incident,  and 
with  his  peculiar  handling  made  a  page  or  two  quite  good 
enough  for  a  novel.  What  matter  ?  Why  should  not 
readers  have  an  interesting  narrative  ?  The  truth  of  the 
affair  is  buried  in  a  musty  old  folio  and  an  almost  unknown 
state  paper. 

The  substance  of  our  historian's  story  is  that  Black  was 
killed  because  he  was  a  bad,  immoral  man,  and  had  vio- 
lated some  domestic  sanctuary,  and  he  really  tells  his  story 
very  well. 

The  truth  is  that  Black  —  well  known  for  his  polemic 
zeal  —  during  the  summer  preceding  the  murder  of  Riccio 
had  distinguished  himself  in  open  debate  with  Willock  the 
Reformer.  The  debate  was  for  years  afterward  remem- 
bered in  Edinburgh  as  having  lasted  two  long  hot  summer 
days  in  the  public  square.  Shortly  after,  Black  was  way- 
laid and  assaulted  in  the  streets  of  Edinburgh  by  four  men, 
who  were  arrested  and  tried  for  the  offense.  Mr.  Froude 
has  seen  the  record  in  Pitcairn's  "  Criminal  Trials."  These 
same  four  men  were  all  engaged  in  the  murder  of  Riccio, 
and  outlawed  for  it.  Not  yet  recovered  from  his  wounds 
received  months  before.  Black  was  slain  in  his  bed  on 
the  night  Riccio  was  killed.  Now,  with  those  facts  before 
him,  Mr.  Froude  tells  us,  — 

"  A  citizen  encountered  him  a  little  before  Christmas  in  some 
room  or  passage  where  he  should  not  have  been.  He  received 
'  two  or  three  blows  with  a  cudgel  and  one  with  a  dagger,'  and 
had  been  since  unable  to  leave  his  bed.  While  Edinburgh  was 
shuddering  over  the  scene  in  the  palace,  a  brother  or  husband 
who  had  matter  against  the  chaplain  —  the  same,  perhaps,  who 
had  stabbed  him  —  finished  his  work,  and  murdered  the  wounded 
wretch  where  he  lay." 


MURDER  OF  BLACK. 


Ill 


"  Some  room  or  passage  where  he  should  not  have  been," 
and  "  a  brother  or  husband  who  had  matter  against  the 
chaplain,"  are  inventions  of  Mr.  Froude,  who  has  read  the 
dispatch  of  Bedford  to  Cecil  (March  18.  State  Paper 
Office,  vol.  xii.  p.  545),  in  which  he  says :  — 

"  David,  as  I  wrote  to  you  in  my  last  letter,  is  slayne,  and  at 
the  same  tyme  was  left  slayne  by  like  order  one  Friar  Black,  a 
ranke  Papist." 

So  that  the  murderers  of  Riccio,  as  would  appear  from 
the  official  information  of  one  of  their  friends  deep  in  their 
secrets,  were  also  the  murderers  of  Black,  and  not, 
haps,"  "  a  brother  or  husband." 

But  why  is  this  "  Black  "  incident  introduced  by  the  Eng- 
lish historian  ?  The  man's  name  was  never  mentioned  be- 
fore, and  he  has  no  necessary  connection  with  the  history 
of  matters  at  the  court  of  Scotland.  We  can  see  no  reason 
but  a  sort  of  cuttle-fish  motive  of  discoloring  all  that  sur- 
rounds it. 

After  portraying  Black  as  a  man  of  immoral  life  banished 
to  England,  our  historian  adds  :  "  But  it  is  to  be  supposed 
that  he  had  merit  of  some  kind,  for  Mary  Stuart  took  him 
into  flwor  and  appointed  him  t)ne  of  the  court  preachers." 
(viii.  2G4.)    Clever ! 

The  fact  that  the  death  of  Black  was  rejoiced  over  as  the 
removal  of  a  troublesome  theological  opponent,  is  made 
certain  by  the  correspondence  of  that  day,  both  in  Scotland 
and  England.  Parkhurst,  Bishop  of  Norwich,  advises 
Bullinger  (Reformed  Church  of  Zurich)  in  terms  at  once 
shocking  and  puerile :  "  Fraterculus  quidam,  nomine  Black 
(niger  Visularius),  Papistarum  antesignanus,  eodem  tem- 
pore in  Aula  occiditur :  Sic  niger  hie  nebulo,  nigra  quoque  ; 
morte  peremptus,  invitus  nigrum  subito  descendit  in  Or- 
cum."^ 

1  Burnet,  Tlisiory  of  the  Reformation^  Lond.  ed.  vol.  iii.  part  2,  p.  406. 


CHAPTER  XL 


JEDBURGH  AND  CRAIGMILLAR. 

"  The  historian,  we  are  told,  must  not  leave  his  readers  to  themselves. 
He  must  not  only  lay  the  facts  before  them :  he  must  tell  them  what  he 
himself  thinks  about  those  facts.  In  my  opinion,  that  is  2»'ecisely  what  he 
ought  not  to  do.^^ — James  Anthojsy  Fboude,  in  Short  Studies  on  Great 
Subjects,  p.  34. 

Murray,  meanwhile,  had  become  omnipotent,  but  our 
historian  fails  to  see  it.  As  the  period  of  Mary's  confine- 
ment approached,  Murray  and  the  Earl  of  Mar  took  ex- 
clusive command  of  the  castle  ;  and  neither  Huntly,  Both- 
'well,  nor  Athol  were  permitted  to  sleep  within  its  walls. 
Mary  was  still  in  deep  mental  suffering  from  the  exposure 
made  of  Darnley's  treachery  and  falsehood.  "  So  many 
great  sighs  she  would  give,"  says  Melville,  "  that  it  was  a  pity 
to  hear  her.'*  Sick  at  heart,  she  seriously  designed  leaving 
Scotland  for  France,  and  intended  to  name  a  regency  of 
five  nobles  to  govern  her  kingdom  during  her  absence. 

As  long  as  Buchanan  was  believed,  Mary's  ride  from 
Jedburgh  was  the  strong  point  relied  on  to  show  her  guilty 
complicity  with  Bothwell  during  Darnley's  life.  Referring 
to  the  fact  that  Bothwell  was  lying  wounded  at  the  Hermi- 
tage, the  accusation  ran  thus  in  Buchanan's  "  Detection,"  and 
in  the  Book  of  Articles  preferred  by  Murray  against  his 
sister :  — 

"  When  news  hereof  was  brought  to  Borthwick  to  the  Queen, 
she  flingeth  away  in  haste  like  a  mad  woman,  by  great  journeys 
in  post,  in  the  sharp  time  of  winter,  first  to  Melrose  and  then 
to  Jedburgh.  There,  though  she  heard  sure  news  of  his  life,  yet 
her  affection,  impatient  of  delay,  could  not  temper  itself,  but 
needs  she  must  bewray  her  outrageous  lust ;  and  in  an  inconven- 


JEDBURGH. 


113 


ient  time  of  the  year,  despising  all  discommodities  of  the  way 
and  weather,  and  all  dangers  of  tliieves,  she  betook  herself  head- 
long to  her  journey,  with  such  a  company  as  no  man  of  any  hon- 
est degree  would  have  adventured  his  life  and  his  goods  among 
them." 

This  makes  a  journey  of  sixty  miles.  Robertson  repeats 
the  story,  remarking  that  "  she  flew  thither  with  an  impa- 
tience which  marks  the  anxiety  of  a  lover."  Although 
this  absurd  fable,  so  far  as  it  reflects  on  the  Queen,  is 
long  since  exploded,  and  nothing  of  it  is  left  but  a  short 
ride  for  a  praiseworthy  motive,  Mr.  Froude  yet  manages  to 
give  a  version  of  it  which,  if  less  gross  in  terms  than  that 
of  Buchanan,  is  to  the  full  as  malicious  in  spirit.  Mr.  Bur- 
ton, with  more  prudence,  wisely  abstains  from  any  struggle 
with  the  facts  of  the  case  and  takes  refuge  in  insinuation. 
Mr.  Froude  states  (viii.  349)  that  the  Queen  of  Scots  in 
September  — 

"  Proposed  to  go  in  person  to  Jedburgh,  and  hear  the  com- 
plaints of  Elizabeth's  wardens.  The  Earl  of  Bothwell  had  taken 
command  of  the  North  Marches  ;  he  had  gone  down  to  prepare 
the  way  for  the  Queen's  appearance,  and  on  her  arrival  she  was 
greeted  with  the  news  that  he  had  been  shot  through  the  thigh 
in  a  scuffle,  and  was  lying  wounded  in  Hermitage  Castle.  The 
earl  had  been  her  companion  throughout  the  summer  ;  her  rela- 
tions with  him  at  this  time  —  whether  innocent  or  not  —  were  of 
the  closest  intimacy ;  and  she  had  taken  into  her  household  a 
certain  Lady  Reres,  who  had  once  been  his  mistress. 

"  She  heard  of  his  wound  with  the  most  alarmed  anxiety  :  on 
every  ground  she  could  ill  afford  to  lose  him  ;  and  careless  at  all 
times  of  bodily  fatigue  or  danger,  she  rode  on  the  15th  of  Octo- 
ber twenty-five  miles  over  the  moors  to  see  him.  The  earl's  state 
proved  to  be  more  painful  than  dangerous,  and  after  remaining 
two  hours  at  his  bedside,  she  returned  the  same  day  to  Jed- 
burgh." 

We  propose  to  dissect  this  singular  passage,  that  our 
readers  may  see  the  writer's  process,  and  with  what  manner 
of  materials  he  constructs  history. 
8 


114 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


It  is  not  true  that  in  September  Mary  proposed  as 
here  stated.^  Her  journey  to  Jedburgh  for  the  purpose  of 
holding  an  assize  was  resolved  upon  by  the  advice  of  her 
ministers  at  Alloa,  as  far  back  as  the  28th  of  July,  as 
shown  by  the  record  of  the  Privy  Council.  Not  true  that 
Both  well  "  had  gone  down  to  prepare  the  way,"  etc.  Not 
true  that  he  "  had  taken  command,"  etc.  Bothwell  had  for 
many  years  been  Warden  of  the  Marches,  having  been  ap- 
pointed by  Mary's  mother,  and  "  had  gone  down  "  —  not  to 
Jedburgh,  but  into  Liddesdale  —  to  arrest  certain  daring 
freebooters.  Not  true,  finally,  that  "  on  her  arrival  she 
was  greeted,"  etc.  Mary  arrived  at  Jedburgh  October  7, 
and  first  heard  on  the  day  following  of  Bothwell's  being 
wounded.  Our  historian  carefully  gives  no  date  here, 
neither  stating  when  Bothwell  was  wounded  nor  when  the 
Queen  arrived  ;  but  he  tells  us  that  she  heard  of  his  wound, 
and  rode  on  the  15th  October  to  see  him.  This  leaves  the 
inference  that  as  soon  as  she  heard  of  Bothv^elVs  wound  she 
started  The  facts  are,  that  although  the  Queen  knew  of 
the  wounding  on  the  8th,  she  remained  at  Jedburgh  with 
her  council,  presiding  and  attending  to  the  business  of  the 
assize  until  it  adjourned  on  the  15th  of  October,  and  even 
then  did  not  leave  Jedburgh  until  the  following  day.  From 
Mr.  Fronde's  account,  she  would  appear  to  have  taken  the 
ride  without  any  escort.  But  Buchanan,  whose  work,  we 
are  assured,  "  is  without  a  serious  error,"  states  that  she 
went  "  with  such  a  company  as  no  man  of  any  honest  de- 

1  "  After  the  strange  appearance  of  Darnley  in  September  at  the  Council  . 
of  Edinburgh,"  Mr.  Froude  has  it.  A  characteristicall}'-  clever  stroke  to 
connect  the  supposed  failing  affection  for  Darnley  with  the  attributed  "in- 
timacy" with  Bothwell.  Here  again,  as  usual,  Mr.  Froude  is  in  open  hos- 
tility with  a  mass  of  reliable  testimony.  We  have  Bedford's  letter  to  Cecil 
as  far  back  as  August  3,  announcing  the  Queen's  notice  "  to  keep  a  justice- 
court  at  Jedworth,  the  Queen's  proclamation  from  her  h-ino;-in  chamber, 
ordering  an  assize  at  Jedburgh  for  August  13,  and  the  fact  that  owing  to 
representations  that  the  assize  would  interfere  with  the  h^vest,  it  Avas 
postponed,  and  proclamation  issued,  September  24:,  for  holding  it  on  the 
8th  of  October." 


BOTHWELL  AND  ELLIOT. 


115 


gree  would  have  ventured  his  life  and  his  goods  among 
them ; "  in  other  words,  that  she  went  escorted  by  thieves 
and  murderers.  Now,  in  thus  describing  Mary's  escort, 
does  Buchanan  tell  the  truth,  or  does  he  lie  ? 

A  serious  dilemma  for  our  writer,  who  finds  his  safety  in 
"  sinking  "  the  escort,  which  consisted  of  the  "  stainless  " 
Murray,  Lethington,  and  several  members  of  her  Council. 
"Were  these  persons  the  approvers  and  accomplices  of  such 
a  journey  as  he  would  have  his  readers  believe  it  to  have 
been  ?  In  their  presence  the  Queen  thanked  Bothwell  for 
his  good  service,  and  expressed  sympathy  for  his  dangerous 
condition.  That  the  Queen  did  not  remain  that  night  at 
the  Armitage  (arsenal  of  Liddesdale,  of  which  Hermitage 
is  a  corruption)  is  a  source  of  positive  unhappiness  to 
Messrs.  Froude,  Buchanan,  and  Mignet.  The  first  consoles 
himself  in  all  his  succeeding  statements,  and  Buchanan 
finds  satisfaction  in  saying  that  she  hurried  back  in  order 
to  make  preparations  for  Bothwell's  removal  there.  Just 
here  let  us  relieve  the  tedium  of  our  dry  work  by  a  pleasant 
story  which  exemplifies  how  some  histories  are  written. 
On  the  day  following  Mary's  return  to  Jedburgh,  a  quantity 
of  writs,  summons,  and  other  documents  were  dispatched 
to  Bothwell  in  his  official  capacity  as  Lieutenant  of  the 
Marches,  and  the  Treasurer's  accounts  of  the  day  certify 
the  payment  of  six  shillings  for  sending  "  ane  boy  "  passing 
from  Jedburgh,  October  17,  with  "  ane  mass  of  writings 
of  our  sovereign  to  the  Earl  of  Bothwell."  Chalmers,  in 
recording  this,  adds  ironically,  "  love-letters,  of  course." 
Whereupon  M.  Mignet,  unfamiliar  with  "  sarcastical  "  Eng- 
lish, takes  it  for  a  serious  statement,  and  tells  his  readers 
that  Mary  hurried  back  to  Jedburgh  in  order  that  she 
might  write  a  long  letter  that  night ! 

Bothwell  was  wounded  "  in  a  scuffle."  A  scuffle  may  be 
a  drunken  brawl.  But  his  "  scuffle "  was  this.  lie  was 
seeking  officially  ^  to  arrest  John  Elliot  of  Park,  a  desper- 
1  "  To  compel  certen  unbiydlit  insolent  thevis  to  shaw  their  obedience  to 


116 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


ate  outlaw  and  the  leader  of  a  formidable  band  of  insur- 
gents.^ Coming  up  with  him  on  the  7th  October,  Elliott 
fled,  and  Bothwell,  without  counting  the  risk  or  waiting  for 
his  escort,  pursued  him  alone.  Overtaking  him,  a  desperate 
hand-to-hand  fight  ensued,^  in  which  he  killed  Elliott,  but 
was  himself  covered  with  wounds  and  left  for  dead  upon 
the  moor.  His  attendants  coming  up  took  him  to  the  ar- 
senal. This  fierce  death-struggle  is  Mr.  Froude's  "scuf- 
fle." 3 

"  The  Earl  had  been  her  companion  throughout  the  sum- 
mer." How,  when,  and  where,  we  are  not  told,  for  Both- 
well's  name  does  not  once  appear  in  his  history  from  page 
272  (viii.),  where  he  rallies  to  the  Queen's  standard  with 
hundreds  of  the  Scottish  nobility,  to  page  303,  where  we 
have  no  facts,  but  insinuating  suggestion  and  evil  suppo- 
sition. 

We  now  propose  to  follow  separately  the  Queen  and 
Bothwell  "  throughout  the  summer,"  and  show  how  some 
histories  are  written.    The  Queen  was  within  three  months 

hir;  but  they  according  to  their  unrewlie  custume  dispj'sit  him  and  his 
commissioun,  in  sik  sort  as  they  invadit  him  fearcelie  and  hurt  him  in  dy- 
verse  pairties  of  his  bodie  and  held,  that  hardlie  he  escapit  with  saiftie  of 
his  lyfe,  and  this  act  was  done  be  the  hand  is  of  JohneEllot  of  the  Park, 
whome  the  said  Erie  slew  at  the  conflict."  —  Contemporary  MS.,  published 
by  the  Bannatyne  Club,  Edinburgh,  1835. 

1  One  of  the  results  of  the  apologetic  controversy  raised  by  Mr.  Froude 
touching  a  letter  of  Randolph  to  Cecil  of  October  5,  1565,  from  Scotland 
(but  which,  having  no  existence,  turned  out  to  be  a  letter  from  Bedford  to 
Cecil,  written  in  England),  is  the  interesting  revelation  that  these  "un- 
brydlit  insolent  thevis  "  —  the  Elliotts  (Elwoods)  —  were  a  band  of  Scotch 
outlaws  in  Queen  Elizabeth's  pay.  From  courtly  and  highborn  traitors  in 
Holyrood  down  to  robbers  on  the  highway,  any  allies  appear  to  have  been 
for  the  English  Queen  good  enough  to  attain  her  ends  against  Mary  Stuart. 

2  Sir  "Walter  Scott's  admirable  picture  of  the  death-struggle  between 
Roderick  Dhu  and  Fitz  James  is  in  Scotland  generally  understood  to  have 
been  taken  from  a  description  of  this  fight. 

3  In  a  document  put  forth  by  Henry  VIII.  to  palliate  the  robbery  and 
desecration  of  the  shrine  of  Canterbury,  the  ghastly  murder  of  the  vener- 
able Thomas  a  Becket  by  a  band  of  mailed  assassins,  is  described  as  a 
"  scuffle."  —  i^rOMcZe,  iii.  278. 


SUMMER  OF  15G6. 


IIT 


of  her  confinement  when  Riccio  was  murdered  in  her 
presence  (March  9).  After  her  escape  from  the  mur- 
derers, she  returned  to  Edinburgh,  and,  entering  her  sick 
room  in  the  castle,  she  never  left  it  until  the  following  July. 
Iler  child  was  born  on  the  19th  June.  But  it  is  absolutely 
necessary  for  the  success  of  Mr.  Froude's  theory  that 
guilty  love  should  exist  between  her  and  Bothwell  previous 
to  the  incidents  of  Jedburgh  and  Craigmillar,  which,  other- 
wise, would  not  be  available  for  desired  manipulation  ;  and 
therefore,  setting  at  defiance  psychology,  physiology,  de- 
cency, and  the  historic  record,  he  selects  this  period.  We 
will  presently  speak  of  Mary's  lately-discovered  last  will 
and  testament,  made  just  before  the  birth  of  her  child, 
which  event,  it  was  feared,  she  might  not  survive.  ^  Both- 
well,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind,  was,  with  the  entire  appro- 
bation of  the  Queen,  married  to  Lady  Jane  Gordon,  a  sis- 
ter of  the  Earl  of  Huntly,  on  the  previous  16th  February, 
and  there  is  no  evidence  that  Mary  ever  saw  him  from  the 
day  she  returned  to  Edinburgh  in  March  to  the  angry  inter- 
view between  him  and  Murray  in  her  presence  in  August. 
It  is  true  that  (viii.  302)  Mr.  Froude  seeks  to  create  the 
impression  that  Bothwell  was  at  the  castle  with  the  Queen 
on  the  24th  of  June,  by  a  garbled  citation  from  a  letter  of 
Killigrew  to  Cecil :  "  Bothwell's  credit  with  the  Queen  was 
more  than  all  the  rest  together."  Here  is  what  Killigrew 
really  wrote :  — 

"The  Earls  of  Argyll,  Moray,  Mar,  and  Cra,wford, presently  in 
court  be  now  linked  together ;  and  Huntly  and  Bothwell  with 
their  friends  on  the  other  side.  The  Earl  of  Bothwell  and  Mr. 
Maxwell  be  both  upon  the  borders  of  Scotland ;  but  the  truth  is, 
the  Earl  of  Bothwell  would  not  gladly  be  in  danger  of  the  four 
above-named,  which  all  lie  in  the  castle ;  and  it  is  thought  and 
said  that  Bothwell's  credit  with  the  Queen  is  more  than  all  the 
rest  together,"  etc. 

1  Mr.  Burton  gives  a  very  remarkable  reason  for  Mary's  alleged  passion 
for  Bothwell :  "  Mary  was  evidently  one  of  those  to  whom  at  that  time  a 
great  affair  of  the  heart  was  a  necessity  of  life  " ! 


118  MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 

From  this  it  would  appear  that  Argyll,  Murray,  Mar,  and 
Crawford,  rather  than  Bothwell,  were  the  Queen's  com- 
panions, for  they  "  did  lie  in  the  castle,"  while  he  was  "  on 
the  borders,"  and  that  Bothwell's  "  credit  with  the  Queen  " 
was  rather  political  than  personal,  and  after  all  a  mere  oji- 
dit  —  people  "  thought  and  said."  And  why  did  people  so 
think  and  say  ?  In  the  admirable  words  of  a  living  Scotch 
author,^  — 

"  Bothwell  was  the  only  one  of  the  great  nobles  of  Scotland 
who,  from  first  to  last,  had  remained  faithful  both  to  her  mother 
and  herself  j  ....  and  whatever  may  have  been  his  follies  or 
his  crimes,  no  man  could  say  that  James  Hepburn  was  either  a 
hypocrite  or  a  traitor.  Though  stanch  to  the  religion  (Protes- 
tant) which  he  professed,  he  never  made  it  a  cloak  for  his  ambi- 
tion ;  though  driven  into  exile  and  reduced  to  extreme  poverty 
by  the  malice  of  his  enemies,  he  never,  so  far  as  we  know,  ac- 
cepted of  a  foreign  bribe.  In  an  age  when  political  fidelity  was 
the  rarest  of  virtues,  we  need  not  be  surprised  that  his  sovereign 
at  this  time  trusted  and  rewarded  him." 

A  laborious  effort  is  made  to  transfer  the  origin  of  the 
enmity  of  Murray  and  his  friends  to  Bothwell  to  a  much 
later  period  and  to  far  different  causes.  But  their  ill-will 
to  him  was  that  of  traitors  to  a  faithful  subject.  Although 
perfectly  at  home  in  the  "  Rolls  House,"  and  thoroughly 
familiar  with  the  diplomatic  correspondence  of  the  period, 
Mr.  Froude  does  not  appear  to  have  seen  the  letter  of 
Bedford  to  Cecil,  written  as  far  back  as  August  2  :  — 

"  I  have  heard  that  there  is  a  device  working  for  the  Earl  of 
Bothwell,  the  particulars  whereof  I  might  have  heard,  but  be- 
cause such  dealings  like  me  not,  I  desire  to  hear  no  further 
thereof.  Bothwell  lias  grown  of  late  so  hated,  that  he  cannot  long 
continue" 

"  Of  late  "  takes  us  back  weeks  and  months,  and  "  de- 
vice "  and  "  such  dealings  "  simply  mean  assassination  or 
murder. 


1  Mary  Queen  of  Scots  and  her  Accusers,  by  John  Hosack. 


THE  ALLOA  LETTER. 


119 


The  Castle  of  Alloa  story  (viii  304)  forms  part  of  the 
foundation  for  an  assertion  of  companionship  throughout 
the  summer.  This  Alloa  story  is  a  wretched  fable  of 
Buchanan's  invention.  The  historian  Burton,  to  whom 
our  English  historian  must  always  bow,  passes  it  over  in 
contemptuous  silence  ;  and  in  his  history.  Bishop  Keith 
says  that  "  the  malignancy  of  the  narrative  is  obvious," 
and  that  "  the  reader  need  hardly  be  reminded  that  all 
this  is  gratuitous  fiction,  having  no  foundation  in  fact." 
Nevertheless,  for  a  partisan  writer,  this  rubbish  is  good 
historic  material.  A  letter  of  Mary  Stuart  written  at  Alloa, 
and  but  lately  discovered  in  the  charter-chest  of  the  Laird 
of  Abercairnie,  shows  that  she  passed  at  least  a  portion  of 
her  time  there  in  pleading  the  cause  of  the  widow  and  the 
orphan.  The  letter  is  given  in  Miss  Strickland's  admir- 
able life  of  Mary  Stuart :  — 

"  To  our  Traist  Friend,  Robert  Murray  of  Abercearne :  — 

*'  Traist  Friend,  —  Forasmeikle  as  it  is  heavily  moaned  and 
piteously  complained  by  this  puir  woman,  that  ye  have  violently 
ejected  her,  with  ane  company  of  puir  bairnies,  forth  of  her 
kindly  home,  ever  willing  to  pay  you  duty  thankfully ;  therefore, 
in  respect  that  if  ye  be  so  extreme  as  to  depauperate  the  puir 
woman  and  her  bairns,  we  will  desire  you  to  show  some  favor, 
and  accept  them  in  their  steeting  (?),  as  ye  have  done  in  times 
bygone ;  the  which  we  doubt  not  but  ye  will  do  for  this  our  re- 
quest, and  as  ye  shall  respect  our  thanks  and  pleasure  for  the 
same. 

«  At  Alway  (Alloa)  the  penult  of  July  1566. 

Marie  K" 

A  part  of  the  Alloa  story  was  that  Mary  was  "  inexora- 
ble "  to  her  husband  ;  and  Mr.  Froude,  representing  Darn- 
ley's  conduct  as  arising  from  his  fear  of  Mary,  so  mangles 
Bedford's  dispatches  to  Cecil  (viii.  304)  as  to  leave  the 
reader  to  suppose  that  Bothwell  was  the  cause  of  the  an- 
gry scenes  between  Mary  and  Darnley,  when  it  was  in  fact 
the  dispute  concerning  Lethington's  (Maitland)  pardon  for 
the  Riccio  murder,  solicited  by  Murray  and  Athol,  and  so 


120 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


fiercely  remonstrated  against  by  Darnley.  All  Darnley's 
vacillation,  trepidation,  and  strange  behavior  arose  from  his 
fear  of  the  revenge  that  would  be  visited  upon  him  by  the 
leading  Riccio  assassins  whom  he  had  betrayed  to  the 
Queen.  He  was  the  cause  of  Morton's  exile,  for,  as  Mr. 
Froude  says,  "  his  complicity  was  unsuspected  until  re- 
vealed by  Darnley,"  and  he  full  well  knew  what  might  be 
expected  from  the  resentment  of  such  men,  even  if  Ruthven 
had  not  threatened  him  with  it  on  the  night  of  the  murder. 
Even  that  writer  cannot  help  seeing  and  admitting  that 
"  in  the  restoration  to  favor  of  the  nobles  whom  he  had  in- 
vited to  revenge  his  own  imagined  wrongs,  and  had  thus 
deserted  and  betrayed,  the  miserable  King  read  his  own 
doom."  Most  true  :  and  the  doom  overtook  him  at  Kirk-a- 
field.  Here,  in  a  moment  of  forge tfuln ess,  the  truth  is  told 
as  to  Darnley's  "  wrongs,"  which  were  "  imagined,"  thus 
contradicting  the  historian's  purient  insolence  in  saying, 
"  whether  she  had  lost  in  Ritzio  a  favored  lover,  or  whether," 
etc.,  which  he  again  contradicts  by  another  calumny,  "  The 
affection  of  the  Queen  of  Scots  for  Bothwell  is  the  best 
evidence  of  her  innocence  with  Ritzio"  (viii.  304),  And 
so  passes  away  our  summer  of  1566,  and  no  Bothwell  ap- 
pears. He  was  not  at  Alloa  at  all,  and  in  Edinburgh  but 
a  day,  to  protest  in  audience  against  the  return  to  Lething- 
ton  of  his  forfeited  lands.  Murray,  all-powerful,  menaced 
Bothwell  in  the  Queen's  presence  in  language  insulting  to 
her,  and  Bothwell,  who,  as  Killigrew  wrote  to  Cecil,  "  would 
not  gladly  be  in  danger  of  Murray  and  his  friends,"  per- 
fectly understanding  that  his  life  was  not  safe  there,  im- 
mediately left  the  court.  The  Lady  Reres'  story  is,  like 
that  of  Alloa,  "pure  Buchanan."  From  the  statement 
made  one  might  suppose  that  no  one  but  Lady  Reres  ac- 
companied Mary  to  Jedburgh.  The  probability  is  that 
Lady  Reres  was  not  there  at  all.  The  certainty  is  that 
Mary  was  accompanied  by  a  large  retinue  of  ladies,  among 
whom  was  Murray's  wife  ;  and  Burton  says  that  according 


MARY'S  POPULARITY. 


121 


to  Lord  Scrope,  who  sent  the  news  to  Cecil,  "  she  had  with 
her,  as  official  documents  show,  Murray,  Huntley,  Athol^ 
Kothes,  and  Caithness,  with  three  bishops  and  the  judges 
and  officers  of  the  court." 

Now  if,  as  asserted,  Mary  Stuart  "  spent  her  days  upon 
the  sea  or  at  Alloa  with  her  cavalier,"  if  Bothwell  had  been 
her  companion  during  the  summer,  if  she  rode  twenty-five 
miles  over  the  moor  as  soon  as  she  heard  of  Bothwell's 
wound,  such  conduct  would  have  inevitably  shocked  and 
scandalized  all  about  her,  and  the  result  must  have  been 
the  utter  destruction  of  respect  for  her  person  and  her  au- 
thority. Unfortunately  for  our  writer,  his  assertions  con- 
cerning Mary  Stuart  at  this  time  fall  within  that  very  large 
category  of  his  facts  which  the  historians  of  that  period 
have  totally  forgotten  to  chronicle.  Nay,  still  more  unfor- 
tunately  for  him,  it  so  happens  that  the  precise  condition 
of  public  sentiment  at  this  time  concerning  Mary  Stuart 
has  been  recorded  by  an  authority  not  to  be  gainsayed  by 
our  English  historian.  An  incorrect  translation  and  a  ma- 
licious signification  are  given  (viii.  350),  to  the  honest  re- 
flection of  the  French  Ambassador  ^  that  Bothwell's  death 
would  have  been  no  small  loss  to  the  Queen,  but  he  fails  to 
see  in  the  very  same  dispatch  this  passage  :  "  1  never  saw 
her  majesty  so  much  beloved,  esteemed,  and  honored,  nor  so 
great  a  harmony  amongst  all  her  subjects,  as  at  the  present 
is  by  her  wise  conduct"  Think  you  the  performances  de- 
scribed by  our  author  would  have  been  held  to  be  wise 
conduct  by  on-lookers  at  whose  head  was  the  "  stainless  " 
Murray  ? 

1  Maitland's  statement  is  on  the  same  page  quite  as  roughly  handled. 
He  wrote :  "  The  Queen's  sickness,  so  far  as  I  can  understand,  is  caused  of 
thought  and  displeasure,  and,  I  trow,  by  what  I  could  wring  further  of  her 
own  declaration,  the  root  of  it  is  the  king,  for  she  has  done  him  so  great 
honor  without  the  advice  of  her  friends,  and  contrary  to  the  advice  of  her 
subjects;  and  he,  on  the  other  hand,  has  recompensed  her  with  such  in- 
gratitude," etc.  Mr.  Froude's  energetic  abbreviation  of  this  passage  is 
"  '  thought  and  displeasure,'  which,  as  she  herself  told  Maitland,  '  had  tljeir 
root  in  the  king,'  had  already  affected  both  her  health  and  spirits."  -  (viii. 
350.) 


122 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


In  cheerful  tones,  the  historian  says  a  few  characteristic 
words  as  to  Mary's  deadly  ilhiess  at  Jedburgh.  The  pas- 
sage is  a  fit  forerunner  of  the  brutality  of  his  subsequent 
picture  of  her  execution.  But,  bad  as  it  is,  we  can  yet 
congratulate  him  on  his  failure  to  follow  Buchanan  to  the 
end.  He  does  not  appear  to  have  sunk  so  low  as  to  dare 
mention  what  Buchanan  says  as  to  the  cause  of  the  Queen's 
illness.  We  have  no  comment  to  make  on  the  intimation 
that  the  bearing  of  Mary  Stuart  on  v/hat  she  and  all  around 
her  supposed  to  be  her  dying  bed  was  "  theatrical,"  nor  on 
the  vulgar  fling  at  her  piety. 

We  now  come  the  great  incident  at  Craigmillar,  which  is 
thus  related  (viii.  354).  One  morning  Murray  and  Mait- 
land  (let  the  reader  here  follow  Murray's  movements) 
come  to  Argyll  "  still  in  bed."  They  want  to  counsel  as  to 
the  means  of  obtaining  Morton's  pardon  for  the  Kiccio  mur- 
der. Maitland  suggests  that  the  best  way  is  to  promise 
the  Queen  to  find  means  to  divorce  her  from  Darnley. 
Argyll  does  not  see  how  it  can  be  done.  Maitland  says, 
"  We  shall  find  the  means."  These  three  next  see  Huntly 
and  Bothwell,  who  fall  in ;  and  all  five  go  to  the  Queen, 
who,  Mr.  Froude  —  on  his  own  authority  —  says,  "  was 
craving  for  release."  Thus  far,  our  historian  adheres 
with,  for  him,  wonderful  fidelity  to  the  only  authority  ^  we 
have  for  an  account  of  this  interview,  but,  as  usual,  the 
moment  Mary  Stuart  appears,  the  historian  and  his  author- 
ities are  arrayed  in  open  hostility.  Maitland  suggested 
to  the  Queen  that  if  she  would  consent  to  pardon  Morton 
and  his  companions  in  exile,  means  might  be  found  to 
obtain  a  divorce  between  her  and  Darnley.  Huntly  and 
Argyll  represent  Mary  as  saying  "  that  if  a  lawful  divorce 
might  be  obtained  without  prejudice  to  her  son,  she  might 
be  induced  to  consent  to  it."    Of  this,  the  very  free  trans- 

1  See  Protestation  of  Huntly  and  Argyll  in  Keith,  vol.  iii.  p.  290.  The 
Earls  of  Huntly  and  Argyll  were  both  Protestant  lords,  the  latter  the 
brother-in-law  of  Murray. 


A  DARK  SUGGESTION. 


123 


lation  is  made,  "  She  said  generally  she  would  do  what 
they  required."  Then  came  the  question  where  the  King 
should  reside,  which  is  met  by  the  Queen's  suggestion  that 
instead  of  seeking  a  divorce,  she  herself  should  retire  a 
while  to  France  (she  had  entertained  the  same  project 
upon  the  birth  of  her  child)  ;  but  it  was  warmly  opposed 
by  Maitland  in  these  very  significant  words  :  "  Do  no£  im- 
agine, madame,  that  we,  the  principal  nobility  of  the  realm, 
shall  not  find  the  means  of  ridding  your  majesty  of  him 
without  prejudice  to  your  son,"  etc.  —  the  rest,  substan- 
tially, as  in  Froude  as  to  Murray's  "  looking  through  his 
fingers  and  saying  nothing."  This  is  at  page  356,  and  the 
average  reader  is  already  supplied  at  page  349  with  the 
theory  Mr.  Froude  desires  to  apply  to  the  Jedburgh  and 
Craigmillar  incidents. 

"  But  Mary  herself,"  dramatically  exclaims  our  writer, 
"  how  did  she  receive  the  dark  suggestion  ?  "  "  This  part 
of  the  story  rests  on  the  evidence  of  her  own  friends  "  — 
reader  being  supposed  by  Mr.  Froude  to  be  ignorant  of 
the  fact  that  every  part  of  the  story  rests  on  the  same  tes- 
timony,^ that  of  Huntly  and  Argyll.  She  said,  he  con- 
tinues, and  we  ask  especial  attention  to  this, —  she  said 
she  "  would  do  nothing  to  touch  her  honor  and  con- 
science ;  "  "  they  had  better  leave  it  alone  ;  "  "  meaning  to  do 
her  good,  it  might  turn  to  her  hurt  and  displeasure." 
This  is  an  ingenious  piece  of  work.  "  They  had  better 
leave  it  alone,"  is  one  of  Mr.  Fronde's  inventions,  and 
these  broken  sentences  are  so  marshaled  as  to  present  to 
the  reader  the  picture  of  a  guilty  person  who  receives  a 
criminal  suggestion  and  replies  somewhat  incoherently  but 
so  as  to  convey  this  idea :  There,  there,  we  understand 
each  other  perfectly  ;  go  and  do  the  deed.    Such  is  the 

1  The  latest  historian  of  Scotland,  Mr.  Burton,  who,  although  an  enemy 
of  Mary  Stuart,  shows  in  citation  some  respect  for  the  integrity  of  histor- 
ical documents,  says,  "  There''is  reason  to  believe  that  this  conversation  is 
pretty  accurately  reported."  —  Vol.  iv.  p.  334. 


124 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


impression  inevitably  conveyed,  and  intended  by  the  writer 
to  be  conveyed. 

The  "  Saturday  Review  "  states  his  offense  with  mild  sar- 
casm by  saying  that  "  Mr.  Froude  does  not  seem  to  have 
fully  grasped  the  nature  of  inverted  commas."  Of  course 
Mary  Stuart  never  spoke  the  words  thus  put  in  her  mouth. 
Here,  "  according  to  Argyll  and  Huntly,"  is  her  reply  to 
Maitland,  —  a  reply  in  perfect  harmony  with  her  habitual 
elevation  of  sentiment  and  dignity  of  bearing  :  — 

"  /  will  that  you  do  nothing  through  luhich  any  spot  may  he 
laid  on  my  honor  or  conscience  ;  and,  therefore,  I  pray  you 
rather  let  the  matter  he  in  the  state  that  it  is,  abiding  till  God 
of  his  goodness  put  remedy  thereto." 

Judge  ye  ! 

The  historian  then  follows  up  his  remarkable  citation 
with  a  pregnant  "  may  be,"  two  "  perhaps,"  both  prolific, 
and  a  line  or  two  of  poetry,  all  of  which  are  supposed  to 
convict  Mary  Stuart  of  asking  the  gentlemen  in  her  pres- 
ence to  oblige  her  by  murdering  Darnley.  To  confirm 
his  accusation,  he  says,  "  The  secret  was  ill  kept,  and 
reached  the  ears  of  the  Spanish  Ambassador,"  and  cites  a 
passage  from  De  Silva's  letter,  which  he  abstains  from 
translating.  The  prudence  is  not  ill-timed,  for  his  citation, 
so  far  from  confirming,  flatly  contradicts  his  statement. 
We  translate  it :  ^  — 

"  I  have  heard  that  some  persons,  seeing  the  antipathy  be- 
tween the  King  and  Queen,  had  offered  to  the  Queen  to  do  some- 
thing against  her  husband,  and  that  she  had  not  consented  to  it. 
Although  I  had  this  information  from  a  good  source,  it  seemed 
to  me  to  be  a  matter  which  was  not  credible  that  any  such  over- 
ture should  be  made  to  the  Queen." 

The  historian  is  mistaken  in  assuming  that  this  De  Silva 
letter  of  January  18  refers  to  the  Craigmillar  interview. 
It  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  all  we  know  of  De  Silva's 
habit  of  pi'ompt  report  to  his  sovereign,  that  he  should  wait 

1  Original  Spanish  (viii.  35G,  note). 


THE  DEAF  CONSPIRATOR.  125 

until  January  18  to  report  an  occurrence  of  the  previous 
November.  Ilis  information  from  Scotland  was  always 
early,  for  as  we  shall  presently  see,  he  heard  of  the  forged 
casket  letters  almost  as  soon  as  Elizabeth,  and  this  advice 
of  January  18  refers,  doubtless,  not  to  the  Craigmillar  ac- 
cident, but  to  the  message  sent  about  the  10th  of  Jaiuiary 
to  Morton  at  Whittingham  by  Maitland  and  Bothwell  as 
to  the  failure  to  obtain  a  warrant  for  Darnley's  arrest. 
But  here  is  something  better.  Mr.  Froude  exposes  Mary 
Stuart's  crime  of  entertaininsj  a  "  dark  suofo^estion  "  to  mur- 
der  Darnley.  Very  good.  But  whatever  "  dark  sugges- 
tion "  there  was  in  the  case  came  from  Murray,^  and  was 
made  to  Mary  Stuart  in  his  name  —  Maitland  speaking 
for  him  ^  —  and  in  his  presence.  Must  we  believe  that 
this  saintly  man  coolly  proposed,  approvingly  listened  to, 
and  silently  acquiesced  in  the  horrible  plot  ?  The  histo- 
rian is  seriously  embarrassed  here,  but  relying,  as  usual, 
on  the  imbecility  of  his  reader,  explains  Murray's  inno- 
cence by  saying,  —  it  is  almost  incredible,  but  he  has  written 
it  down  (viii.  355)  :  "  The  words  were  scarcely  ambiguous, 
yet  Murray  said  nothing.  Such  subjects  are  not  usually 
discussed  in  too  loud  a  tone,  and  he  may  not  have  heard 
THEM  DISTINCTLY."  The  rooms  at  Craigmillar  were  small, 
and  Mr.  Froude,  in  his  last  volume,  describes  Mary  Stu- 
art's voice  on  the  scaffold  of  Fotlieringay,  after  twenty-one 
years  of  suffering  and  sleekness,  as  one  of  "  powerful,  deep- 
chested  tones."    And  yet  Murray  did  not  hear  her  ! 

Our  historian  here  plays  for  a  high  stake.  His  object  is 
to  impress  upon  the  reader  the  idea  that  this  conversation 

1  "His  ambition,"  says  Robertson,  "was  immoderate.  His  treatment 
of  the  Queen,  to  whose  bounty  he  was  so  much  indebted,  was  unbrotherly 
and  ungrateful.  The  dependence  upon  Elizabeth  under  which  he  brought 
Scotland  was  disgraceful  to  the  nation.  He  deceived  and  betrayed  Norfolk 
with  a  baseness  unworthy  of  a  man  of  honor." 

2  "  And  albeit  that  my  Lord  of  Murray  here  present  be  little  less  scru- 
pulous for  a  Protestant  than  j^our  grace  is  for  a  Papist,  I  am  assured  he 
will  look  through  his  fingers  thereto,  and  will  behold  our  doings,  saying 
nothing  to  the  same." 


126 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


constituted  the  so-called  Craigmillar  bond  for  the  murder 
of  Darnley.  The  Queen  must  be  implicated  in  the  plot  to 
which,  from  this  moment,  he  assumes  she  is  party,  even  at 
the  risk  of  compromising  Murray.  Hence  the  ingenious 
"  he  may  not  have  heard  distinctly.''  That  Murray  was  per- 
fectly well  acquainted  with  the  ulterior  designs  of  the  men 
with  whom  he  went  to  the  Queen,  there  can  be  no  doubt ; 
but  that  any  "  dark  suggestion,"  as  it  is  melo-dramatically 
expressed,  was  made  in  the  Queen's  presence  is  by  himself 
most  emphatically  denied.  It  is  to  us  a  matter  of  no  mo- 
ment what  he  denies  or  what  he  affirms,  but  his  statement 
effectually  crushes  out  Mr.  Fronde's  "  dark  suggestion." 
Upon  his  oath  Murray  declares  :  — 

"  In  case  any  man  will  say  and  affirm  that  ever  I  was  present 
when  any  purposes  was  holden  at  Craigmillar  in  my  audience, 
tending  to  any  unlawful  or  dishonorable  end,  I  avow  that  they 
speak  wickedly  and  untruly,  which  I  will  maintain  against  them 
as  becomes  an  honest  man  to  the  end  of  my  life." 

Maitland's  answer  to  the  Queen  is,  of  course,  omitted  by 
our  author.  It  was,  "  Madame,  let  us  guide  the  business 
among  us,  and  your  grace  shall  see  nothing  but  good, 
and  approved  by  Parliament"  They  certainly  did  not  ex- 
pect murder  to  be  approved  by  Parliament.  Mr.  Froude 
does  not  tell  his  readers  of  this,  because  it  is  fatal  to  his 
"  ill-kept "  secret  and  his  "  dark  suggestion."  What  was 
really  meant  was  impeachment,  to  which  Darnley  was  lia- 
ble for  dismissing,  by  usurped  authority,  the  three  Estates 
of  Scotland  in  Parliament. 

The  schemes  attributed  to  Mary  by  her  traducers  for  the 
destruction  of  Darnley  are  not  half  so  remarkable  for  their 
wickedness  as  for  their  clumsiness  and  stupidity.  If  Mary 
Stuart  desired  at  this  or  at  any  time  to  be  rid  of  Darnley, 
he  could  have  been  legally  convicted  and  sent  to  the  scaf- 
fold on  half-a-dozen  charges,  not  to  mention  the  crime  of 
heading  the  conspiracy  to  murder  Riccio  in  the  Queen's 
presence.    This  fact  was  fully  confirmed  by  the  "  Instruc- 


MARY*S  LAST  WILL. 


127 


tions  of  the  Scottish  Nobles  and  Prelates,"  September  12, 
1858  (Goodal,  vol.  ii.  p.  359)  :  — 

"  They  (the  Lords)  oficred  '  to  git  him  convict  of  treason  be- 
cause he  consented  to  hir  Grace's  retention  in  ward,'  quhilk  alto- 
gedder  hir  Grace  refusit,  as  is  manifestlie  knawin,  so  that  it  may 
be  clearly  considered  hir  Grace,  having  the  commoditie  to  find 
the  means  to  be  separate  and  yet  would  not  consent  thereto,  that 
hir  Grace  wold  never  have  conscntit  to  his  murthour,  having  sic 
other  likelie  means  to  have  been  quit  of  him  be  the  Lords'  own 
device." 

Mr.  Froude  presents  this  reflection  (viii.  349)  :  — 

"  Had  Darnley  been  stabbed  in  a  scuffle  or  helped  to  death  by 
a  dose  of  arsenic  in  his  bed,  the  fair  fame  of  the  Queen  of  Scots 
would  have  suffered  little." 

Very  sensibly  put.  And  if  "  the  keenest-witted  woman 
living,"  as  she  is  described,  had  really  been  the  instigator 
of  the  crime,  is  it  to  be  supposed  she  selected  the  means 
of  murder,  of  all  others  best  calculated  to  "  challenge  the 
attention  of  the  civilized  world  "  with  the  thunder-clap  and 
lightning-flash  of  its  perpetration  ? 

A  word  or  a  nod  from  her  would  have  been  sufficient  to 
have  disposed  of  Darnley  quietly  and  effectually.  But  she 
clung  to  him  with  all  the  strength  of  her  much-abused  love, 
and  a  late  discovery  ^  has  brought  to  light  a  touching  proof 
of  her  attachment  to  him  during  this  very  summer  of  1566, 
the  period  of  those  asserted  peculiar  "  relations "  with 
Both  well.  Although  made  in  1854,  this  fresh  and  impor- 
tant testimony  appears  not  yet  to  have  been  heard  of  by  Mr. 

1  Mr.  Hosack  gives  the  fac-simile  of  a  page  of  Mary's  will  made 
just  before  the  birth  of  her  child  in  June,  1566.  It  was  discovered  in 
the  Register  House,  Edinburgh.  She  bequeaths  to  Darnley  her  choicest 
jewels  —  far  more  of  them  than  to  an}"-  one  else.  There  are  as  many  as 
twenty-six  valuable  bequests  to  her  husband  of  watches,  diamonds,  rubies, 
pearls,  turquoises,  a  "  St.  Michael,"  containing  fourteen  diamonds,  a  chain 
of  gold  of  two  hundred  links  with  two  diamonds  to  each  link,  and  lastly, 
a  diamond  ring  enameled  in  red,  as  to  which  the  Queen. writes:  "  It  was 
with  this  I  was  married;  I  leave  it  to  the  King  who  gave  it  to  me." 


128 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


« 


Froude.  What  De  Silva  refers  to  in  his  letter  is  the  pro- 
posed impeachment,  and  he  speaks  still  more  plainly  in  an- 
other dispatch  not  cited  by  the  English  writer :  "  Many 
had  sought  to  engage  her  in  a  conspiracy  against  her  hus- 
band, but  she  gave  a  negative  to  every  point."  And  yet 
our  historian  has  the  hardihood  to  represent  as  an  entire 
success  this  utter  failure  of  Murray  and  his  colleagues  to 
draw  the  Queen  into  a  plot  against  Darnley.  If  a  success, 
why  was  not  Morton  forthwith  pardoned,  for  that  was  the 
immediate  advantage  the  nobles  were  to  gain  from  the 
Queen  ?  Failing  with  her,  the  conspirators  resolved  on 
the  murder  of  Darnley,  and  a  bond  was  drawn  up  to  get 
rid  of  the  "  young  fool  and  proud  tyrant."  It  was  pre- 
pared by  Sir  James  Balfour,  an  able  lawyer  and  thorough- 
paced villain.    Murray,  — 

*'  The  head  of  many  a  felon  plot, 
But  never  once  the  arm !  "  i  — 

declares  he  did  not  sign  it.  Possibly  he  did  not,  his  col- 
leagues being  satisfied  with  his  promise  that  he  "  would 
look  through  his  fingers  and  say  nothing." 

We  have  thus  dissected  Mr.  Froude's  singular  presenta- 
tion of  the  facts  connected  with  Mary's  presence  at  Alloa, 
Jedburgh,  and  Craigmillar,  partly  to  expose  his  system  of 
writing  history,  and  partly  to  draw  attention  to  the  dilemma 
in  which  he  finds  himself  Were  he  really  a  historian,  he 
would  recount  the  facts  attending  Mary  Stuart's  career, 
leaving  readers  to  draw  their  own  conclusions.  And  in- 
deed, as  a  general  proposition,  he  appears  to  have  some 
dim  perception  that  such  a  course  would  be  the  true  one. 
At  page  485,  vol.  iv.,  he  says :  "  To  draw  conclusions  is  the 
business  of  the  reader ;  it  has  been  mine  to  search  for  the 
facts."  Again,  at  page  92,  vol.  i.  :  "  It  is  not  for  the  histo- 
rian to  balance  advantages.  His  duty  is  with  facts."  But 
he  starts  out  with  the  assumption  of  Mary  Stuart's  guilt, 
and  hastens  to  announce  it  while  describing  her  as  an  in- 
1  Aytoun. 


historian's  duty. 


129 


fant  in  lier  cradle,^  entirely  forgetting  his  very  sensible  re- 
flection (ii.  451),  "  We  cannot  say  what  is  probable  or  what 
is  improbable,  except  that  the  guilt  of  every  person  is  im- 
probable antecedent  to  evidence ; "  making  of  her  a  fiend 
incarnate  in  the  teeth  of  his  own  declared  doctrine  (i.  172), 
that  "  some  natural  explanation  can  usually  be  given  of  the 
actions  of  human  beings  in  this  world  without  supposing 
them  to  have  been  possessed  by  extraordinary  wickedness ; " 
setting  at  defiance  his  principle  that  a  given  historical  sub- 
ject "  is  one  on  which  rhetoric  and  rumor  are  alike  un- 
profitable "  (ii.  448)  ;  and  elaborating  such  a  monstrous 
portraiture  of  the  Queen  of  Scots  as  can  be  "  credible  " 
(we  borrow  the  writer's  words)  "  only  to  those  who  form 
opinions  by  their  wills,  and  believe  or  disbelieve  as  they 
choose."  A  reader  of  good  memory  who  has  just  com- 
pleted the  perusal  of  this  historian's  account  of  Mary 
Stuart  must  involuntarily  recall  his  prophetic  words  (iv. 
496)  :  "  We  all  know  how  such  fabrics  are  built  together, 
commenced  by  levity  or  malice,  carried  on,  repeated,  mag- 
nified, till  calumny  has  made  a  cloud  appear  like  a  moun- 
tain." 

Here  is  the  dilemma.  Mary  Stuart's  guilt  cannot  possi- 
bly be  proven  unless  we  accept  the  forged  casket-letters  as 
genuine.  If  they  are  admitted,  we  have  no  choice  but  to 
look  upon  the  Queen  of  Scots  as  a  most  wicked  and  de- 
praved woman.  Now,  as  we  will  show  in  the  proper  place, 
our  historian  not  only  utterly  breaks  down  in  attempting  to 
establish  the  casket-letters,  but  makes  a  deplorably  feeble 
failure  in  meeting  the  question  at  all.  Hence,  for  him,  the 
absolute  necessity  of  proof  aliunde.  But  we  have  seen  of 
what  this  proof  is  made.  His  great  effort  is  to  lead  cap- 
tive the  reader's  judgment,  and  impress  him  with  the  be- 
lief of  Mary's  guilt  before  the  casket-letters  are  reached. 
If  he  can  but  obtain  even  a  hesitating  faith  in  them,  he  is 
safe,  the  fair  fame  of  this  woman  is  blasted,  and  people 

1  Ante,  p.  22. 

9 


130 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


may,  if  their  taste  that  way  incline,  do  as  he  does,  and  in 
joyous  phrase  execrate  her  memory  and  call  her  foul 
names. 

We  would  not,  though,  have  our  readers  suppose  Mr. 
Froude  incapable  of  pity.  By  no  means.  He  relates  how 
Anne  Boleyn  was  justly  and  legally  convicted  of  fornica- 
tion, adultery,  and  incest,  and  exclaims :  "  Let  us  feel  our 
very  utmost  commiseration  for  this  unhappy  woman  :  if  she 
was  guilty,  it  is  the  more  reason  that  we  should  pity  her." 
(ii.  458.)  Amen  !  say  we,  with  all  our  heart.  And  to  this 
amen  we  find  in  all  Mr.  Froude's  pages  the  response,  Yes, 
pity  for  her  —  for  any  one  but  Mary  Stuart.  Hence,  we 
witness  efforts,  by  means  and  appliances  heretofore  un- 
known to  serious  writers  of  history,  to  show  Mary  Stuart's 
guilt  as  manifested  in  her  determination  to  be  divorced 
from  Darnley,  the  threat  to  take  his  life,  and  in  the  plot  to 
murder  him.  We  have  shown  that  the  threat  to  take  Darn- 
ley's  life  is  simply  an  invention  of  Mr.  Froude  ;  ^  that  the 
determined  divorce  ^  is  also  an  invention  ;  and  that  the  plot 
was  —  so  far  as  Mary  is  concerned  —  what  we  have  just 
exposed. 

The  occasion  of  the  baptism  of  the  infant  prince  (17th 
December)  was  seized  to  press  the  petition  for  the  pardon 
of  Morton  and  his  associates.  Murray,  Athol,  and  Both- 
well,  all  joined  in  solicitation,  but  the  most  powerful  in- 
fluence came  from  Queen  Elizabeth  and  her  envoy  Bed- 
ford.^ From  the  pardon  were  excepted  George  Douglas, 
who  had  stabbed  Riccio  over  the  Queen's  shoulder,  and 
Ker  of  Faudonside,  who  held  a  pistol  to  her  breast.  Why 
Darnley  should  dread  the  return  of  Morton  and  his  friends 
is  very  plain.  They  looked  upon  him  as  equally  guilty 
with  themselves  in  the  Riccio  murder,  and  to  this  he  had 
added  the  (in  their  eyes)  infamy  of  betraying  them  and 


1  Ante,  p.  99.  2  Ante,i^.  109. 

8  See  Elizabeth  to  Throckmorton  (Keith,  428),  and  Bedford  to  Cecil, 
January  9,  1566. 


DARNLEY  AND  THE  LORDS. 


131 


perpetuating  their  exile.  The  historian  may  well  record 
that  "  it  could  only  have  been  with  terror  ....  that  he 
should  meet  Morton."  Quite  reason  enough  for  sudden 
departure  from  Stirling. 


CHAPTER  XII. 


DARNLEY. 

"  If  you  read  any  man  partially  bitter  against  others,  as  differing  from 
him  in  opinion,  ....  take  heed  how  you  believe  any  more  than  the 
historical  evidence,  distinct  from  his  word,  compelleth  you  to  believe." 

Richard  Baxter. 

There  are  whole  pages  of  the  history  in  question  in 
which  bhmder  and  invention  strive  for  the  mastery,  and 
alternately  obtain  it  in  every  line.^  Thus  :  "  The  poor  boy 
might  have  yet  been  saved,  etc.  He  muttered  only  some 
feeble  apology,  however,  and  fled  from  the  court  '  very 
grieved.'  He  could  not  bear,  some  one  wrote,  '  that  the 
Queen  should  use  familiarity  with  man  or  woman,  especially 
the  lords  of  Argyll  and  Murray,  which  kept  most  company 
with  her.'  "  "  Some  one  wrote  " —  it  matters  not  who, 
"  some  one's  "  text  being  here  no  more  respected  than  any 
one's  text.  What  "  some  one  "  really  wrote  was,  "  The  king 
departed  very  grieved."  For  "  departed  "  our  historian  here 
substitute  "  fled  from."  The  word  "  ladies  "  is  altered  to 
"  lords"  one  of  the  ladies  of  the  original  ^  being  dropped  by 

1  The  paragraph  of  twenty-one  lines  beginning  at "  The  next  morning  the 
council  met  "  (viii.  307),  contains  numerous  serious  errors,  the  least  of  which 
is  that  Mr.  Froude  names  Bothwell  as  one  of  the  lords  who  were  "  all  Catlio 
lies."  Bothwell!  than  whom  there  was  not  in  all  Scotland  a  more  uncom- 
promising Protestant.  At  the  baptism  of  the  prince,  he  refused  to  be  pres 
ent  at  that  "  popish  ceremony."  Mr.  Froude  says  (viii.  358),  "Three  of 
the  Scottish  noblemen  were  present  at  the  ceremony.  The  rest  stood  outside 
the  door."  Reader  necessarily  supposes  "  the  rest "  to  signify  a  large  crowd. 
"The  rest"  \yere  Bothwell,  Murray,  and  Huntly,  who,  as  the  Scotch  Puri- 
tan Diurnal  of  Occurrents  records,  "  came  not  within  the  said  chapel,  be- 
cause it  was  done  against  the  points  of  their  rehgion." 

2  Which  reads,  "  He  cannot  beare  that  the  queeue  should  use  familiaritie 
either  with  men  or  women,  and  especially  the  ladies  of  Arguille,  Moraj'', 
and  Marre,  who  kepe  most  company  with  her." 


HISTORICAL  EVIDENCE. 


133 


him  in  the  process.  These  hidies  were  the  ladies  of  Ar- 
gyll, Murray,  and  Mar,  respectively  the  sister,  the  wife,  and 
the  aunt  of  Murray  !  It  does  not  suit  the  author's  purpose 
that  the  reader  should  see  that  these  ladies,  and  not  Lady 
Reres,  were  the  "  constant  companions  "  of  the  Queen  dur- 
ing the  summer,  and  that  the  Murray  —  not  the  Bothwell 
—  interest  was  in  the  ascendant  at  court.  Mr.  Froude  is 
curiously  infelicitous  in  his  translations  from  the  French 
and  Spanish.  He  quotes  Du  Croc,  "  In  a  sort  of  despera- 
tion," and  "  he  [Darnley]  had  no  hope  in  Scotland,  and  he 
feared  for  his  life."  (viii.  307.)  There  is  not  a  syl- 
lable OF  THIS  IN  Du  Croc,  who  wrote,  "  Je  ne  vois  que 
deux  choses  qui  le  desesph  ent."  These  two  things,  he  goes  on 
to  explain,  are :  First,  The  reconciliation  between  the  lords 
and  the  Queen  rendering  him  jealous  of  their  influence  with 
her.  Second,  That  Elizabeth's  minister,  coming  to  the  bap- 
tism of  the  young  prince,  was  instructed  not  to  recognize 
Darnley  as  king.  "  11  prend  une  peur  de  recevoir  une  honte*' 
adds  Du  Croc.  That  is  to  say,  he  feared  this  public  slight, 
and  therefore  was  not  present  at  the  baptism.  And  of  this 
Mr.  Froude  makes  not  only  the  abuse  of  the  false  trans- 
lation, "  Be  feared  for  his  life,''  but  conceals  the  true  cause 
of  Darnley's  absence  from  the  baptismal  ceremonies,  and 
tells  his  too  confiding  readers,  — 

"  It  boded  ill  for  the  supposed  reconciliation  that  the  prince's 
father,  though  in  the  castle  at  the  time,  remained  in  his  own 
room,  either  still  brooding  over  his  wrongs  and  afraid  that  some 
insult  should  be  passed  upon  him,  or  else  forbidden  by  the  Queen 
to  appear."  i    (viii.  358.) 

"  Either  "  —  "  or  else  "  —  Mr.  Froude  does  not  even  pre- 
tend to  know  which.  Reader  may  take  his  choice.  Mean- 
time, historian,  aware  of  the  true  cause,  knows  positively  it 
was  neither.    Admire,  as  you  pass,  "  his  wrongs."  Darn- 

1  Cecil  appears  to  have  been  of  a  different  opinion,  and  writes  to  the  Eng- 
lish ambassador  at  Paris,  September  1,  1565  :  "  The  young  King  is  so  in- 
solent, as  his  father  is  weary  of  his  government  and  is  departed  from  the 
court." 


134 


MAEY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


ley's  wrongs  !  Lennox  "  neglected  "  is  excellent  and  mirth- 
compelling.  If  Miiry  had  been  an  Elizabeth,  this  miser- 
able old  sinner  Lennox  would  long  before  have  been  sent 
to  the  block  for  his  repeated  treasons.  He  was  an  irre- 
claimable traitor,  and  his  son's  mad  and  perverse  conduct 
was  mainly  due  to  his  evil  counsel.  The  only  punishment 
inflicted  upon  him  was  banishment  from  Mary's  presence. 
Thus  was  he  neglected.  Decidedly  Mary  was  wrong.  He 
should  have  been  attended  to.  Chalmers  has  correctly  de- 
scribed Mary's  reign  as  a  reign  of  plots  and  pardons.  And 
so  it  was.  The  timely  chopping  off  of  a  few  traitors'  heads 
would  have  saved  to  her  her  crown  and  her  life.^  Darnley 
is  now  the  "  poor  boy."  In  these  pages,  every  one,  from 
Murray  down^  to  "  blasphemous  Balfour,"  is  good,  virtuous, 
or  pious,  just  in  proportion  as  they  are  useful  to  him  against 
Mary  Stuart ;  and  Darnley  begins  from  this  moment  to  be 
more  and  more  interesting,  up  to  the  scene  where  historical 
romance  places  him  "  lying  dead  in  the  garden  under  the 
stars,"  in  the  odor  of  sanctity,  with  the  words  of  the  Fifly- 
fifth  Psalm  expiring  on  his  lips. 

Darnley  was  depised  by  the  loyal  for  his  treatment  of  his 
wife,  while  the  disloyal  had  his  foul  treachery  to  avenge. 
Here  is  the  estimate  of  his  standing  and  character  made 
by  Scotch  Protestant  historians,  — 

Bishop  Keith  credits  Darnley  with  some  good  natural 
qualifications,  adding. 

"  But  then,  to  balance  these,  he  was  much  addicted  to  intemper- 
ance, to  base  and  unmanly  pleasures ;  he  was  haughty  and  proud, 
and  so  very  weak  in  mind  as  to  be  a  prey  to  all  that  came  about 
him,"  etc. 

"  Addicted  to  drunkenness,"  says  Roberston,  "  beyond  what  the 
manners  of  that  age  could  bear,  and  indulging  irregular  passions 

1  "  To  the  philosophical  student  of  history  it  is  not  a  pleasing  matter  for 
reflection  that,  while  the  unexampled  forbearance  and  humanity  exhibited 
toward  her  rebellious  subjects  by  Mary  only  encouraged  them  to  fresh  at- 
tacks upon  her  authority,  the  ruthless  policy  of  her  sister  queen  proved 
eventually  successful."  —  Hosack,  p.  509. 


darnley's  character. 


135 


which  even  the  licentiousness  of  youth  could  not  excuse,  he,  by 
his  indecent  behavior,  provoked  the  Queen  to  the  utmost ;  and 
the  passions  which  it  occasioned  often  forced  tears  from  her  eyes, 
both  in  public  and  private."  "  A  debauchee,  a  babbler,  and  a  fool 
—  universally  hated  and  depised." 

"  Darnley  was  a  fool,  and  a  vicious  and  presumptuous  fool. 
There  is  scarcely  to  be  found  in  his  character  the  vestige  of  a 
good  quality."  "  He  indulged  in  every  vicious  appetite  —  to  the 
extent  of  his  physical  capacity  —  over-ate  himself  and  drank 
hard.  His  amours  were  notorious  and  disgusting  —  he  broke  the 
seventh  commandment  with  the  most  dissolute  and  degraded  be- 
cause they  were  on  that  account  the  most  accessible  of  their 
sex."    (Burton,  vol.  iv.  296.) 

It  will  be  remembered  that,  when  Mary  was  disposed  to 
pardon  the  principal  conspirators  in  the  Riccio  murder, 
Darnley  opposed  it,  and  denounced  some  who  until  then 
had  been  unknown.  They  retaliated  by  accusing  him  of 
having  instigated  the  plot,  and  laid  the  bonds  for  the  murder 
before  the  Queen,  who  then,  for  the  first  time,  saw  through 
his  duplicity.  He  was  thus,  in  the  expressive  words  of  Mr. 
Tytler,  the  "  principal  conspirator  against  her,  the  defamer 
of  her  honor,  the  plotter  against  her  liberty  and  her  crown, 
the  almost  murderer  of  herself  and  her  unborn  babe."  He 
was  "  convicted  as  a  traitor  and  a  liar,  false  to  his  own 
honor,  false  to  her,  false  to  his  associates  in  crime."  ^  Mel- 
ville, Du  Croc,  and  other  eye-witnesses  have  given  us  vivid 
pictures  of  the  keen  suffering  and  poignant  grief  caused 
Mary  by  her  disappointment  in  the  handsome  youth  on 
whom  she  had  lavished  her  affections  ^  —  grief  a  hundred- 
fold increased  by  the  silence  which  love  for  Darnley  and 
respect  for  herself  imposed  upon  her. 

1  Even  Mr.  Froude  is  not  far  wrong  when  he  describes  (viii.  284)  Darnley 
as  "left  to  wander  alone  about  the  country  as  if  the  curse  of  Cain  was 
clinging  to  him." 

2  "  That  very  power,"  says  Robertson,  "  which  with  liberal  and  unsuspici- 
ous fondness  she  had  conferred  upon  him,  he  had  employed  to  insult  her 
authority,  to  limit  her  prerogative,  and  to  endanger  her  person." 


136 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


"  She  is  still  sick,"  writes  Du  Croc  in  November,  "  and  I  be- 
lieve the  principal  part  of  her  disease  to  consist  of  a  deep  grief 
and  sorrow  ;  nor  can  she,  it  seems,  forget  the  same ;  again  and 
again  she  says  she  wishes  she  were  dead." 

Again  he  writes  after  the  baptism,  of  her  exerting  her- 
self so  much  to  entertain  her  company  on  that  occasion, 
that  it  made  her  forget  in  a  good  measure  her  former  ail- 
ments." He  found  her  "  weeping  sore."  "  I  am  much  grieved 
at  the  many  troubles  and  vexations  she  meets  with."  If 
Mary  Stuart  had  been  the  woman  portrayed  by  Mr.  Froude, 
she  would  have  made  Scotland  ring  with  her  complaints  of 
Darnley's  misconduct.  Instead  of  these,  we  see  suppressed 
grief,  sighs,  melancholy,  dark  brooding  sorrow,  and  illness 
that  brought  her  to  death's  door. 

It  is  matter  of  surprise  that  even  our  historian  should 
have  the  weakness  to  adopt  Buchanan's  silly  story  of  the 
poisoning  of  Darnley.^  Nevertheless  he  does  so  with  the 
solemn  face  of  the  teller  of  a  ghost  story  who  believes  his 
fable.  The  abundant  testimony  as  to  the  true  nature  of 
Darnley*s  illness  should  have  warned  him  against  so  hazard- 
ous an  experiment ;  —  but  Darnley  poisoned  is  so  much 
more  interesting  to  this  historian  than  Darnley  down  with 
the  small-pox,  that  he  cannot  see  the  Bedford  dispatch. 
Always  inspired  by  Buchanan,  but  careful  never  to  cite 

1  We  regret  that  want  of  space  will  not  permit  copious  citation  from 
Buchanan's  Detection.  Here  is  a  specimen  of  his  method  of  proving  Mary- 
Stuart's  gui'lt.  "  When  he  (Darnley)  was  preparing  to  depart  for  Glasgow, 
she  caused  poison  to  be  given  to  him.  You  will  ask:  By  whom?  In  what 
manner?  What  kind  of  poison?  Where  had  she  it?  Ask  you  these 
questions?  as  though  wicked  princes  ever  wanted  ministers  of  their  wicked 
treacheries.  But  still  you  press  me,  perhaps,  and  still  you  ask  me,  AVho  he 
these  ministers?  If  this  cause  were  to  be  pleaded  before  grave  Cato  the 
Censor,  all  this  were  easy  for  us  to  prove  before  him  that  was  persuaded  that 
there  is  no  adultress  but  the  same  is  also  a  poisoner.  Need  we  seek  for  a 
more  substantial  witness  than  Cato,  every  one  of  whose  sentences  antiquity 
esteemed  as  so  many  oracles?  Shall  we  not  in  a  manifest  thing  believe 
him  whose  credit  hath  in  things  doubtful  so  oft  prevailed?  Lo,  here  a  man 
of  singular  uprightness,  and  of  most  notable  faithfulness  and  credit,  beareth 
witness  against  a  woman  burning  in  hatred  of  her  husband,"  etc. 


BUCHANAN'S  POISON. 


137 


him,  he  substantially  copies  the  charge  that  Darnley  was 
poisoned,  and  was  lying  sick  at  Glasgow,  but  suppresses  the 
passage  "and  yit  all  this  quhyle  the  queue  wuld  ngt  suffer 
sa  mekle  as  ane  Phisitioun  anis  to  cum  at  him,"  because  he 
well  knows  that  Mary  quickly  sent  her  own  skillful  French 
surgeon,  who  rescued  the  patient  from  the  hands  of  a  Dr. 
Abernethy  of  the  Lennox  household,  who  was  really  poison- 
ing him  with  antidotes.  With  dreadful  sarcasm  we  are  told 
of  "  a  disease  which  the  court  and  the  friends  of  the  court 
were  pleased  to  call  small-pox."  And  yet  the  Earl  of  Bed- 
ford, Elizabeth's  minister,  wrote  to  Cecil,  January  9, 
1566-7  :  "  The  King  is  now  at  Glasgow  with  his  father,  and 
there  lyeth  full  of  the  smallpockes,  to  whom  the  Queen 
hath  sent  her  phisician."  Drury,  the  English  agent  on  the 
Border,  sends  a  dispatch  of  the  same  nature,  and  there  is 
abundant  other  contemporary  evidence  to  the  same  effect. 

So  far  as  Mary  is  personally  concerned,  all  this  portion 
of  Mr.  Fronde's  book  is  the  echo  or  the  amplification  of 
Buchanan,  who  says  that  the  Queen  and  Bothwell  for 
months  before  the  baptism  of  the  prince  were  living  in 
adultery  in  a  manner  so  public  and  notorious,  "  as  tliey 
seemed  to  fear  nothing  more  than  lest  their  wickedness  should 
he  unknown''  This  being  the  case,  there  ought  to  be  no 
difficulty  in  producing  abundant  contemporary  evidence  to 
corroborate  it.  But  not  a  tittle  of  proof  exists  that  even 
reports  of  that  nature  were  in  circulation  until  after  Darn- 
ley's  death.  During  all  the  period  referred  to,  the  dis- 
patches of  the  English  and  French  ambassadors  contain, 
almost  day  by  day,  the  fullest  accounts  of  everything  — 
even  matters  of  the  most  private  nature  —  that  took  place 
at  court ;  but  the  letters  of  neither  Bedford  nor  Du  Croc 
contain  the  slightest  hint  to  aid  Messrs.  Buchanan  and 
Fronde.  What  is  more  significant,  not  a  syllable  of  the 
kind  can  be  found  even  in  the  reports  made  up  by  Drury 
on  the  Border  out  of  all  the  gossip  and  scandal  that  came 
in  a  steady  stream  from  his  paid  spies  and  from  public 


138 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


rumor.  In  this  connection  it  may  be  remarked  that  this 
criminal  charge  is  made  against  a  woman  who  from  her 
position  as  a  sovereign  could  never  obtain  the  privacy  and 
shelter  from  observation  which  are  always  at  the  command 
of  persons  in  private  life. 

Such  intercourse  as  is  here  referred  to,  even  if  it  es- 
caped public  attention,  the  watchful  eyes  and  ears  of  for- 
eign and  inimical  ambassadors,  discontented  courtiers,  and 
paid  spies,  could  by  no  possibility  elude  the  ever  present 
and  intimate  observation  of  servants  and  domestics.  We 
all  know  that  in  cases  where  such  matters  undergo  legal 
investigation,  the  most  direct  testimony  is  always  found  in 
possession  of  this  class,  who,  if  females,  are  generally  most 
severe  towards  their  own  sex,  especially  if  of  high  social 
rank.  The  reflection  has  frequently  been  made,  —  and 
it  is  of  value,  —  that  of  all  the  numerous  household  of 
Mary  Stuart,  Scotch,  French,  and  English,  men,  women, 
girls,  and  boys,  Protestants  and  Catholics,  not  a  solitary 
witness  was  ever  pretended  to  be  produced  against  her, 
even  when  dethroned,  powerless,  and  in  prison.  Does  any 
one  object  the  Paris  pai3er  ?  That  worthless  document 
owes  its  existence  to  the  very  fact  here  pointed  out.  Out- 
side the  Paris  deposition  and  the  casket-letters,  not 
even  the  ingenuity  of  Mr.  Froude  can  discover  testimony 
except  in  Buchanan  and  his  own  imagination.  From 
Darnley's  conversation  with  Mary  at  Glasgow,  it  is  evi- 
dent that  all  her  movements  had  been  watched,  and  re- 
ported to  him  by  those  who  were  perfectly  willing  to  tell 
rather  more  than  less.  Swiftly  he  would  have  known  any 
report  of  the  kind.  It  was  precisely  during  the  time  re- 
ferred to  by  Buchanan  and  Froude  that  Du  Croc  repre- 
sents Mary  as  never  standing  higher  in  public  estimation, 
and  that  Queen  Elizabeth  was  deeply  angered  at  finding 
the  English  Parliament  of  the  same  opinion,  and  on  dis- 
covering from  their  address  in  November  the  evident 
strength  of  Mary's  partisans  in  both  houses.    De  Silva 


Mary's  popularity. 


139 


writes  to  Spain,  "  The  Queen  has  so  much  cfredit  with  the 
good  all  over  the  realm,  that  the  blame  is  chiefly  laid  on  the 
Lord  Darnley."  (See  Froude,  viii.  318.)  And  in  the  same 
letter,  "  The  question  (in  Parliament)  will  be  forced  in 
the  Queen  of  Scots'  interest,  and  with  the  best  intentions. 
Her  friends  are  very  numerous,"  etc.  "  All  England  then 
bore  her  majesty  great  reverence,"  is  Melville's  report  at 
the  same  time. 

Our  historian  appears  to  be  able  to  see  but  one  event 
between  Christmas  (1566)  and  January  14  (1567),  and 
that  event  is  incorrectly  dated.  It  is  the  meeting  of  Both- 
well  and  Morton  at  "  the  hostelry  of  Whittingham."  (viii. 
360.)  That  Whittingham  ^  should  be  turned  into  a 
"  hostelry  "  is  not  of  much  consequence,  but  that  we  find 
no  mention  made  of  Maitland's  presence  there,^  is  impor- 
tant. It  is  well  established  by  George  Douglas'  letter, 
and  by  a  letter  of  Drury  to  Cecil  (January  2od),  "  The 
Lord  Morton  lieth  at  the  Lord  of  Whittingham's,  where 
the  Lord  Bodwell  and  Ledingtoft  came  of  late  to  visit." 
We  do  not  care  to  expose  in  detail  the  poor  device  to  ac- 
quit Morton  on  his  own  confession  of  participation  in  the 
Darnley  murder.  If  that  confession  is  admitted  by  Mr. 
Froude,  he  must  also  accept  Bothyell's  confession.^  The 
men  were  both  so  full  of  all  evil  that  it  miorht  be  difficult 
for  some  to  choose  between  them,  except  that  Bothwell 
never  took  English  bribes,  and  had  not,  like  Morton,  on  his 
soul  anything  so  meanly  black  as  the  selling  of  the  Duke 
of  Northumberland.  Morton's  confession  is  worthless.  He 
had  entered  into  the  bond  for  the  murder  before  coming 

o 

to  Scotland. 

Our  historian  says  not  a  word  of  the  reports  concerning 
the  plot  of  Darnley  and  his  father,  of  Murray's  warning  the 

1  It  was  a  castle  with  valuable  domains  attached,  the  property  of  Mor- 
ton, and  the  gift  of  the  Queen  to  him  two  years  before. 

2  See  Appendix,  voL  ii.  p.  424,  Robertson. 
8  See  Appendix  No.  13. 


140 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


Queen  that  the  plot  threatened  her  life  and  her  throne,  of 
the  meeting  and  action  of  the  Privy  Council  of  January  10, 
of  the  drawing  of  a  warrant  by  Murray  and  Maitland  for 
the  arrest  and  imprisonment  of  Darnley,  its  presentation  to 
Mary,  and  her  refusal  to  sign  it.  The  reports  of  the  trea- 
sonable designs  of  Lennox  and  Darnley  had  been  traced 
to  two  Glasgow  men,  Hiegate  and  Walcar,  and  the  Queen 
had  but  to  allow  Murray  and  Maitland  to  act,  and  she 
would  soon  have  been  legally  rid  of  Darnley.  But  she 
refused  to  believe  the  reports,  had  Hiegate  and  Walcar 
examined  before  the  Council,  cross-examined  them  herself, 
and  did  not  rest  until  the  whole  matter  was  thoroughly 
sifted. 

The  plot  to  murder  Darnley  was  entered  into  by  the 
conspirators  after  the  foilure  at  Craigmillar  to  obtain  Mary's 
consent  to  the  divorce.  So  that  they  were  but  rid  of  him, 
it  was  immaterial  to  them  as  to  the  means,  although  they 
would,  probably,  have  been  satisfied  to  dispense  with  mur- 
der. Hence  the  attempt  "  to  git  him  convict  of  treason 
because  he  consented  to  hir  Grace's  detention,"  etc.  Mean- 
time emissaries  were  industrious  in  sowing  discord  between 
Mary  and  her  husband.  One  story  ran  that  Mary  was  to 
be  dethroned  by  Lennox  and  his  son  ;  another,  that  Darn- 
ley was  to  be  imprisoned,  which  report  was  carried  by 
Lord  Minto  to  Lennox,  who  swiftly  told  his  son.  George 
Douglas  (nephew  of  Morton)  states  that  at  Whittingham 
he  was  requested  by  Morton  to  accompany  Bothwell  and 
Maitland  to  Edinburgh  and  to  return  with  such  answer  as 
they  could  obtain  of  her  majesty,  "  which  being  given  to 
me  by  the  same  persons,  as  God  shall  be  my  judge,  was  no 
other  than  the  words,  '  show  to  the  Earl  of  Morton  that 
the  Queen  will  hear  no  speech  of  that  matter  appointed 
unto  him.'  "  Now  if  this  be  true,  the  warrant  which  the 
Queen  refused  to  sign,  as  already  stated,  is  what  is  here 
referred  to.  If  it  was,  as  Mr.  Fronde  strives  to  show,  "  a 
warrant  "'for  Darnley's  murder,  Maitland  could  have  told 


MARY "AND  DARNLEY. 


141 


us  of  it.  In  any  event,  the  best  case  made  for  Morton  is 
that,  perfectly  apprised  of  the  "  bond  "  to  murder  Darnley, 
he  stood  by  silent  and  motionless  and  saw  it  carried  into 
effect.  In  making  his  "confession  "  he  was  asked  by  the 
ministers  "  if  he  did  not  counsel  him  (Bothwell)  to  the  con- 
trary," he  coolly  replied  "  I  counseled  him  not  to  the  con- 
trary." 

Walcar  and  Hiegate  were  servants  of  the  Archbishop  of 
Glasgow  (then  in  Paris),  to  whom  Mary  reported  their  con- 
duct. As  she  made  complaint,  it  was  necessary  to  explain 
the  nature  of  their  offense,  and  the  statements  made  con- 
cerning the  plots  of  Lennox  and  Darnley.  "  As  for  the 
King  our  husband,"  she  says,  — 

"  God  knows  always  our  part  towards  him  ;  and  his  behavior 
and  thankfulness  to  us  is  equally  well  known  to  God  and  the 
world ;  specially  our  own  indifferent  (impartial)  subjects  see  it, 
and  in  their  hearts,  we  doubt  not,  condemn  the  same.  Always 
we  perceive  him  occupied  and  busy  enough  to  have  inquisition 
of  our  doings,  which,  God  willing,  shall  ever  be  such  as  none  shall 
have  occasion  to  be  offended  with  them,  or  to  report  of  us  any- 
ways but  honorably,  however  he,  his  father,  and  their  fautors 
speak,  which  we  know  want  no  good-will  to  make  us  have  ado, 
if  tlieir  power  were  equivalent  to  their  minds." 

Of  all  these  matters  here  is  our  historian's  record  :  "  On 
the  20th  (January)  she  wrote  a  letter  to  the  Archbishop  of 
Glasgow  at  Paris,  complaining  of  her  husband's  behavior 
to  her,  while  the  poor  wretch  was  still  lying  on  his  sick- 
bed," etc.  Note  "  the  poor  wretch  "  —  a  very  clever  stroke. 
But  otherwise  we  cannot  compliment  the  passage,  which 
may  be  best  described  in  Mr.  Fronde's  own  words  as  "  turn- 
ing history  into  a  mere  creation  of  the  imaginative  sympa- 
thies." Mr.  Froude  is  evidently  not  strong  in  the  philos- 
ophy nor  in  the  rules  of  evidence.  Such  a  performance  as 
he  describes  is  scarcely  compatible  with  a  design  against  a 
man  so  soon  to  be  removed  by  murder.  Mr.  Froude  never 
tires  of  telling  us  how  clever  Mary  Stuart  was.  "Would 


142 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


such  a  woman  write  a  letter  calculated  to  form  ground  of 
suspicion  against  her?  So  far  as  she  does  complain  she 
does  it  in  terms  at  once  dignified  and  proper  and  with  am- 
ple justice.  Her  ambassador  at  Paris  was  her  most  trusted 
friend  and  adviser,  and,  as  we  shall  see,  this  letter  was  not 
specially  written  to  complain  of  Darnley,  but  concerning 
numerous  matters  of  importance.  The  Queen  and  Darnley 
were  in  correspondence  at  the  time,  and  his  letters,  which 
were  contrite,  induced  her  visit  to  Glasgow.  Even  Craw- 
ford's deposition  makes  Mary  ask  "  what  is  meant  by  the 
cruelty  mentioned  in  his  letters"  (not  "  his  letter"),  and 
Darnley's  reply  is,  "  It  is  of  you  only  that  will  not  accept 
my  offers  and  repentance."  In  Mr.  Froude's  account  of 
this  interview  we  find,  as  usual,  his  accomplished  actress 
and  keen-witted  woman  falling  far  short  of  the  ability  with 
which  he  seeks  to  endow  her.  Was  it  in  the  celebrated 
Medicean-Machiavellic  school  she  learned  that  flies  were 
caught  with  vinegar  ?  What  a  clumsy  piece  of  work  to 
begin  by  interrogating  Darnley  as  to  the  unfavorable  re- 
ports of  his  conduct  ?  Was  that  "  a  seductive  wile  ?  "  All 
her  language,  all  her  bearing  here,  is  that  of  the  sensible 
woman  and  the  affectionate  wife.  Darnley's  course  had 
been  simply  outrageous. 

Mary  had  everything  to  forgive,  and  the  foolish  young 
man  appears  to  have  at  last  taken  a  proper  view  of  his 
conduct.  Mary  came  to  him  in  affection,  but  with  well- 
merited  reproaches.  His  outspoken  and  apparently  sincere 
penitence,  his  affection,  and  his  earnest  desire  again  to. 
be  united  to  her,  all  tend  to  reconcile  her.  "  I  desire  no 
other,"  said  he,  "but  that  we  may  be  together  as  hus- 
band and  wife  ;  and  if  ye  will  not  consent  thereto,  I  desire 
never  to  rise  forth  from  this  bed."  So  Crawford  states 
Darnley's  language  in  his  deposition ;  but  Mr.  Froude  has 
a  special  version  of  his  own,  which  materially  changes  its 
meaning.  Crawford  was  the  retainer  and  friend  of  the 
traitor  Lennox,  and  his  insolent  demeanor  to  the  Queen, 


MARY  AND  DARNLEY. 


143 


who  "  bade  him  hold  his  peace,"  showed  his  enmity  to  her. 
What  he  represents  as  Darnley's  doubt  and  suspicions  were 
simply  his  own  malicious  suggestions.  The  "  History " 
makes  him  say,  "  Why  did  she  not  take  him  (Darnley)  to 
Holyrood."  He  really  said,  "  If  she  desired  his  company, 
she  would  take  him  to  his  own  house  at  Edinburgh"  —  at 
once  artfully  flattering  Darnley's  pride  by  styling  the  royal 
residence  his  house''  and  reviving  the  old  sore  as  to  the 
"  crown  matrimonial." 


CHAPTER  XIIT. 

GLASGOW  AND  KIRK  o'  FIELD. 

"  The  prodigious  lies  which  have  been  published  in  this  age,  in  matters  of 
fact,  with  unblushing  confidence,  ....  doth  call  men  to  take  heed  what 
history  they  believe,"  etc. — Richard  Baxter,  Author  of  A  Call  to  the 
Unconverted. 

At  page  361,  vol.  viii.,  we  find  some  philosophical  reflec- 
tions on  the  difRciilties  "  the  historian  "  has  to  encounter, 
and  we  are  told,  with  some  truth,  "  The  so-called  certain- 
ties of  history  are  but  probabilities  in  varying  degrees." 
But  when  the  historical  narrative  is  resumed,  the  writer  ap- 
pears to  have  no  conception  of  the  corollary  of  his  doc- 
trine, namely,  that  things  merely  probable  must  not  be 
stated  as  certain.  It  is  at  this  stage  of  his  work  that  our 
historian  at  almost  every  page  is  forcing  the  reader's  hand 
—  so  to  speak — by  coupling  Mary's  name  with  that  of 
Bothwell  as  "  her  lover."  "  She  set  out  for  Glasgow  at- 
tended by  her  lover."  The  Queen  left  Edinburgh  January 
24th.  But  Murray's  journal  makes  Bothwell  start  for  Lid- 
desdale,  a  different  direction,  on  that  very  day.  Hence  it 
is  found  necessary  to  fix  her  departure  on  the  23d,  which 
Mr.  Froude  does  ;  although  Murray  in  his  diary  places  it 
on  the  21st.  We  know  that  she  was  accompanied  by  her 
lord  chancellor,  the  Earl  of  Huntly,  and  a  retinue.  "  They 
spent  the  night  at  Callander  together."  Reader  to  suppose 
some  "  hostelry."  Mary  Stuart  spent  the  night  with  her 
friends  Lord  and  Lady  Livingston,  who  were  among  the 
most  faithful  of  her  Protestant  nobility,  and  for  whose  in- 
fant she  had  stood  s^odmother  a  few  months  before.  It 
suits  the  historian's  purpose  to  conceal  the  high  standing 


MOTHER  OR  SON? 


145 


and  respectability  of  Mary's  hosts.  "  Mary  Stuart  pursued 
her  journey  attended  by  Bothwell's  French  servant,  Paris." 
(viii.  3G2.)  Mary  Stuart  pursued  her  journey  attended  by 
the  Earl  of  Huntly,  Lord  Livingston,  the  Hamiltons  and 
their  followers,  and  numerous  gentlemen,  so  that  before  she 
reached  Glasgow  her  train  amounted  to  nearly  five  hun- 
dred horsemen.  "  The  news  that  she  was  on  her  way  to 
Glasgow  anticipated  her  appearance  there."  Really  this 
is  not  surprising  when  we  know  that  the  Queen  had  sent 
repeated  messages  and  letters  that  she  was  coming.  And 
now  comes  a  blunder  of  our  historian,  almost  incredible  in 
its  grossness :  — 

"  Darnley  was  still  confined  to  his  room ;  but,  hearing  of  her 
approach,  he  sent  a  gentleman  who  .was  in  attendance  on  him, 
named  Crawford,  a  noble,  fearless  kind  of  person,  to  apologize 
for  his  inability  to  meet  her."   (viii.  363.) 

This  is  amazing.  A  man  down  with  the  small-pox  apol- 
odzes  for  not  cominsr  out  five  miles  on  horseback  in  a  Scotch 
January !  That  Mr.  Tytler  committed  the  error  of  taking 
Crawford,  who  was  a  retainer  of  Lennox  (Darnley's  fa- 
ther), for  a  retainer  of  Darnley,  is  no  excuse  for  a  modern 
writer  with  ten  times  Ty tier's  advantages.  It  was  the'  of- 
ficial duty  of  the  Earl  of  Lennox  to  have  met  and  escorted 
the  Queen  into  Glasgow,  and  he  sent  Crawford  to  present 
his  humble  Gowimendations  to  her  majesty,  "  with  his  ex- 
cuses for  not  coming  to  meet  her  in  person,  praying  her 
grace  not  to  think  it  was  either  from  pride  or  ignorance  of 
his  duty,  but  because  he  was  indisposed  at  the  time,"  etc. 
Mr.  Froude  has  before  his  eyes  Murray's  diary,  with  the 
entry  :  "  January  23d.  The  queue  came  to  Glasgow,  and 
on  the  rode  met  her  Tkos.  Crawford  from  the  Earl  of  Len- 
nox." He  has  the  minutes  of  the  English  Commission- 
ers, who  describe  Crawford  as  "  a  gentleman  of  the  Earl  of 
Lennox."  He  has  seen  the  abstract  describing  this  pas- 
sage as  "  Nuncius  Patris  in  itinere  "  —  "  The  Message  of 
the  Father  in  the  Gait,"  but  cannot  consent  to  spoil  his 
10 


146 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


tableau.  There  is  another  reason.  Murray's  diary  and 
date  January  23d  plays  havoc  with  the  chronology  of  our 
historian  and  that  of  the  casket-letters.  And  yet  another, 
which  is,  that  Crawford,  according  to  his  own  account, 
was  a  mischief-maker  and  a  spy,  commissioned  by  Len- 
nox to  eavesdrop  and  report  what  he  might  see  and  hear 
in  Glasgow  castle.  Being  enlisted  against  Mary  Stuart, 
Crawford  ipso  facto  becomes  "a  noble,  fearless  kind  of 
person."  When  not  employed  in  weaving  garlands  for 
Murray,  Mr.  Froude  gives  all  his  spare  time  throughout 
these  volumes  in  delivering  certificates  of  excellence,  re- 
wards of  merit,  and  prizes  of  virtue  to  all  and  sundry 
who  may  appear  in  enmity  to  Maiy  Stuart.  Our  writer 
goes  on  with  his  sketch,  assuring  us  that  Darnley's  "  heart 
half-sank  within  him  when  he  was  told  that  she  was  com- 
ing," and  ascribing  to  the  son  the  "  fear  "  of  the  father. 
Then  follow  four  pages  in  which  Mary's  inmost  thoughts 
and  the  most  secret  workings  of  her  wicked  desions  are 
laid  bare  to  the  reader.  He  even  sees  the  "  odd  glitter  of 
her  eyes,"  and  assures  us  that  "  Mary  Stuart  was  an  ad- 
mirable actress ;  rarely,  perhaps,  on  the  world's  stage  has 
there  been  a  more  skillful  player ; "  adding,  "  She  had  still 
some  natural  compunction." 

Almost  amusing  is  Mr.  Froude's  haste  to  reach  the  point 
where  he  may  avail  himself  of  the  forged  casket-letters  and 
the  Paris  confession.  He  clutches  at  them  as  a  drowning 
man  at  a  plank,  and  hastens  to  weave  their  contents  into 
his  narrative,  with  skillful  admixture  of  warp  of  Buchanan, 
woof  of  "  casket,"  and  color  and  embroidery  wholly  his  own. 
He  thus  introduces  them  in  a  note  (viii.  362)  :  "  The  authen- 
ticity of  these  letters  will  be  discussed  in  a  future  volume 
in  connection  with  their  discovery,  and  with  the  examination 
of  them  which  then  took  place."  Of  course  this  promise  is 
not  kept,  and  when  we  reach  the  period  of  promised  re- 
demption, we  find  it,  substantially,  a  repetition  of  what  he 
relies  on  at  the  outset.    "  The  inquiry  at  the  time  appears 


PLACE  OR  PLAN? 


147 


to  nie  to  supersede  authoritatively  all  later  conjectures.'* 
We  shall  presently  see  what  this  "inquiry  at  the  time" 
amounted  to,  as  also  the  nature  and  substance  of  these 
conjectures.  Our  historian  greatly  needs  the  aid  of  the 
forged  casket-letters,  and  is  swift  to  avail  himself  of  them. 
One  would  think  they  were  strong  enough  for  his  purpose. 
Not  so.  At  page  368,  vol.  viii.,  a  passage  is  cited  in  which 
Mary  is  made  to  write  to  Bothwell,  "  the  place  shall  hold 
to  the  death"  (Scotch  version),  "place"  meaning  castle  or 
stronghold.  The  French  version  has  it  "  cette  forteresse." 
But  Mr.  Froude  alters  place  to  plan,  —  "  the  plan  shall 
hold  to  the  death." 

Darnley  was  brought  in  a  litter  by  easy  stages  from 
Glasgow  to  Edinburgh,  and  was  four  (not  two)  days  on  the 
road.    And  now  we  have  this  sketch  (viii.  373) :  — 

"  As  yet  he  knew  nothing  of  the  change  of  his  destination,  and 
supposed  that  he  was  going  to  Craigmillar.  Bothwell,  however, 
met  the  cavalcade  outside  the  gates  and  took  charge  of  it.  No 
attention  was  paid  either  to  the  exclamations  of  the  attendants 
or  the  remonstrances  of  Darnley  himself;  he  was  informed  that 
the  Kirk-a-Field  house  was  most  convenient  for  him,  and  to 
Kii-k-a-Field  he  was  conducted." 

As  history,  this  statement  comes  to  grief  in  presence  of 
the  testimony  of  Murray's  swift  witness,  Thomas  Nelson, 
described  by  Mr.  Froude  as  Darnley's  "  groom  of  the 
chamber."    Nelson  testifies :  — 

"Item,  the  Deponat  remembers  it  was  dewysit  in  Glasgow, 
that  the  King  suld  half  lyne  first  in  Craigmillar.  But  because  He 
had  Na  Will  thairof  the  purpors  was  alterit,  and  conclusion  takin 
that  he  suld  ly  beside  the  Kirk  of  Field." 

Nelson,  after  Darnley's  death,  entered  the  service  of  the 
Countess  of  Lennox,  the  mother  of  Darnley,  who  must 
have  heard  from  him,  more  than  once,  all  he  had  to  say 
touching  Darnley's  stay  at  Glasgow  and  at  Kirk  o'  Field. 
1  Anderson,  vol.  iv.  p.  165. 


148 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


Yet  the  Countess  before  her  death  was  fully  convinced  of 
Mary's  innocence,  and  so  wrote  her. 

THE  MURDER  OF  DARNLEY.^ 

Our  historian's  narrative  of  the  events  of  February  9th 
is  a  mere  fancy  sketch.  We  are  told  that,  after  attending 
the  ceremony  of  marriage  of  her  attendants  Bastian  and 
Margaret  Garwood,  — 

"  When  the  service  was  over,  the  Queen  took  an  early  supper 
•with  Lady  Argyll,  and  afterwards,  accompanied  by  Cassilis, 
Huntly,  and  the  Earl  of  Argyll  himself,  she  went  as  usual  to 
spend  the  evening  with  her  husband,  and  professed  to  intend  to 
stay  the  night  with  him.  The  hours  passed  on.  She  was  more 
than  commonly  tender ;  and  Darnley,  absorbed  in  her  caresses,'* 
etc. 

The  suggestion  of  a  quiet  "  early  "  supper  with  Lady 
Argyll  is  ingenious.  It  lodges  in  the  mind  of  the  reader 
the  idea  that  this  woman  is  getting  ready  betimes  for  her 
work.  But  the  quiet  little  tete-a-tete  supper  turns  out  to 
be  a  grand  banquet  given  (at  the  usual  early  hour  of  supper 
of  that  period)  by  the  Bishop  of  Argyll,  in  honor  of  the 
Ambassador  of  Savoy  and  his  suite,  who  were  to  take  their 
leave  the  next  day.  On  leaving  the  banquet  to  visit  Darn- 
ley  the  Queen  was  attended,  not  only  by  the  three  noble- 
men visible  to  Mr.  Froude,  but  by  all  the  noble  guests 
present,  who  accompanied  her  to  Kirk  o'  Field,  where  they 
paid  their  respects  to  Darnley,  the  Queen  thus  holding 
with  him  a  small  court  reception.^     There  was  no  "pro- 

1  The  fullest  statement  of  the  facts  connected  Avith  the  murder  of  Darn- 
ley is  that  given  b}'  Miss  Strickland  in  the  thirtieth  chapter  of  her  Life  of 
Mary  Stuart.  The  sixth  chapter  of  Mr.  Hosack's  work  is  an  admirable 
legal  analysis  of  the  testimony  bearing  on  the  same  event. 

Clernault,  the  French  Envoy,  wrote  home:  "  The  King  being  lodged  at 
one  end  of  the  city  of  Edinburgh  and  the  Queen  at  the  other,  the  said  lady 
came  to  see  him  on  a  Sunda}'"  evening,  which  was  the  9th  of  this  month, 
about  seven  o'clock,  with  all  the  principal  lords  of  her  court,  and  after  having 
remained  with  him  two  or  three  hours,  she  withdrew  to  attend  the  bridal  of 
one  of  her  gentlemen,  according  to  her  promise ;  and  if  she  had  not  made 


MURDER  OF  DARNLEY. 


149 


fessed  to  intend  to  stay  "  in  the  case.  On  the  contrary, 
she  had  promised  days  before  to  attend  the  mask  and  ball 
at  Holyrood  that  night.  "  The  hours  passed  on."  They 
usually  do.  It  is  a  habit  they  have.  "  Absorbed  in  her 
caresses,"  —  as  the  historian's  information  is  here  evidently 
exclusive,  we  decline  remark.  Then  (viii.  379)  we  have 
a  word-painting  profuse  in  the  picturesque,  but  sober  in 
authenticated  facts.  In  it  Mary  Stuart  is  very  hateful,  and 
Darnley  very  lovely  ;  all  with  such  rubbish  as  the  Queen's 
sending  back  to  "  fetch  a  fur  wrapper,  which  she  thought 
too  pretty  to  be  spoiled,"  ^  and  Darnley's  opening  the  Eng- 
lish Prayer-book  to  read  the  Fifty-fifth  Psalm  —  "  if  his 
servant's  tale  was  true."  What  servant's  tale  ?  All  Darn- 
ley's  servants  who  were  with  him  perished  that  night  ex- 
cept Nelson,  who  tells  some  surprising  stories  in  his  deposi- 
tion, but  does  not  get  as  far  as  the  prayers. 

Attention  has  been  drawn  to  the  threat  of  revenge  ^  which 
Mr.  Froude  puts  into  the  Queen's  mouth,  and  to  the  use 
he  makes  of  his  own  prophecy.  We  now  read  (ix.  378)  : 
"  As  she  left  the  room  she  said,  as  if  by  accident,  *  It  was 
just  this  time  last  year  that  Ritzio  was  slaine.' "  The 
authority  given  for  the  statement  is  "  Caldervvood."  Cal- 
derwood  ?  who  is  Calderwood  ?  queries  the  reader.  Was 
he  a  servant  of  Darnley  ?  Was  he  present  at  Kirk  oj  Field, 
and  did  he  hear  the  Queen  say  those  words  ?  Or,  per- 
chance, was  he  a  contemporary  who  received  the  statement 
from  a  reliable  source  ?  No  information  is  given  concern- 
ing him  by  our  historian  but  the  bare  name  Calderwood. 
We  find  on  examination  that  Darnley  had  been  dead  twenty 

that  promise,  it  is  believed  that  she  would  have  remained  till  twelve  or  one 
o'clock  with  him,  seeing  the  good  understanding  and  union  in  which  the 
said  lady  Queen  and  the  King  her  husband  had  been  living  for  the  last  three 
weeks." 

1  An  English  writer  remarks:  "  This  is  making  her  not  the  most  wicked 
of  women,  but  an  incarnate  fiend !  Where  is  the  proof  that  her  reason  for 
sending  back  was  not  simply  that  the  night  was  cold?  " 

2  Ante,  p.  99. 


150 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


years  when  Calderwood  was  born,  and  that  about  half  a 
century  thereafter  he  wrote  a  Historie  of  the  Kirk  of 
Scotland."  With  its  merits  as  a  history  of  the  Kirk  we 
have  nothing  to  do,  but  in  so  far  as  it  undertakes  to  chron- 
icle secular  matters,  — which  it  does  at  some  length,  —  it  is 
the  merest  trash,  made  up  exclusively  of  Buchanan  and  the 
verbal  gossip  current  among  the  enemies  of  the  Queen  of 
Scots.^  He  does  not  even  pretend  to  cite  authority  for  his 
statements,  but  runs  on  in  a  wishy-washy  stream  of  old 
wives'  tales.  No  serious  historian  quotes  him.  But  it  is 
written  that  Mr.  Froude  shall  not  cite  anything  correctly, 
not  even  poor  Calderwood,  who  wrote  not  what  the  histo- 
rian puts  into  his  mouth,  but,  —  "  Among  other  speeches 
she  said  that  about  the  same  time  a  bygane  a  yeare,  David 
Kizio  was  slaine." 

We  are  told  that  on  the  night  of  the  murder  "  Mary 
Stuart  had  slept  soundly."  This  is  on  Buchanan's  authority, 
but  his  language  is  not  cited.^  We  insist  on  producing  it. 
Buchanan  says  that,  when  Mary  Stuart  heard  that  Darnley 
was  killed,  "  she  settled  herself  to  rest,  with  a  countenance 
so  quiet  and  a  mind  so  untroubled  that  she  sweetly  slept 
till  the  next  day  at  noon."  Mr.  Froude  himself  has  a  much 
finer  picture  (viii.  370)  :  "  With  these  thoughts  in  her  mind 
Mary  Stuart,  Queen  of  Scotland,  lay  down  upon  her  bed  — 
to  sleep,  doubtless  —  sleep  with  the  soft  tranquillity  of  an  in- 
nocent child."  There  need  be  no  doubt  now  as  to  the  ex- 
pression of  Mary's  features  on  that  occasion.  To  be  sure, 
there  exists  a  difficulty  in  reconciling  Buchanan  and  Paris. 

1  We  are  entirely  of  Mr.  Froude's  opinion  when  he  says  (v.  277):  "  The 
probability  is  immeasurably  great  that  all  charges  produced  long  afterdate 
against  persons  who  have  excited  the  animosity  of  a  theological  or  political 
faction  are  lies." 

2  The  enemies  of  Mary  Stuart  find  Buchanan  indispensable,  but  are 
ashamed  to  cite  him  by  name.  We  have  seen  M.  Mignet's  device  to  avoid 
mention  of  him.  (Appendix  No.  3.)  Mr.  Froude  uses  his  filthy  material 
constantly,  but,  it  is  said,  quotes  him  by  name  but  once  in  all  his  volumes. 
This  is  a  mistake.  He  cites  Buchanan  by  name  three  times  (iv.  179,  vii. 
383,  and  ix.  7),  but  none  of  these  citations  relate  directly  to  Mary  Stuart. 


AFTER  THE  MURDER. 


151 


The  first  says  Mary  slept  till  noon  ;  the  second,  that  he  saw 
her  awake  between  nine  and  ten  o'clock.  Mr.  Fronde 
places  implicit  faith  in  both  —  which  is  proper  and  con- 
sistent, any  testimony  against  Mary  Stuart  being  good  tes- 
timony. •  Our  historian  goes  on  :  "  The  room  was  already 
hunor  ^vith  black  and  liiihted  with  candles."  This  was  be- 
tween  nine  and  ten  in  the  morning.  The  explosion  took 
place  at  three  o'clock.  Now,  either  Mary  Stuart  must  have 
suspended  the  sound  sleep,  of  which  Buchanan  and  Mr. 
Froude,  of  all  the  people  in  the  world,  appear  to  know  any- 
thmg,  or  else  she,  "  the  keenest-witted  woman  living  "  (viii. 
225),  was  fool  enough  to  order  the  room  to  be  hung  with 
black  before  Darnley  was  killed.  Will  Mr.  Froude  ex- 
plain ?  We  place  at  his  service  a  few  friendly  hints.  "  Son 
lict  tendu  de  noir,'^  does  not  mean,  as  he  translates,  "  The 
room  was  already  hung  with  black."  It  means  that  the 
bed  was  hung  with  black.  Lict  or  lit  means  bed  ;  chamhre 
means  a  room.  The  word  icelle,  in  his  note  (ix.  5),  does 
not  make  sense.  It  is  evidently  a  misprint  for  la  ruelle, 
meaning  the  space  between  the  bed  and  the  wall.  Paris 
illuminates  this  ruelle  with  "  de  la  chandelle."  Mr.  Froude 
improves  this,  and  lights  up  the  whole  apartment.  "  Eat- 
ing composedly,  as  Paris  observed."  But  there  is  no  such 
thing  as  "  eating  composedly  "  in  the  text  as  furnished  by 
Mr.  Froude  himself.  At  pp.  5  and  6,  vol.  ix.,  he  sums  up 
in  a  manner  which  perils  his  case  and  exposes  its  weakness. 
Every  line  of  the  two  long  paragraphs  commencing  with 
"  Whatever  may  or  may  not,"  at  p.  5,  and  ending  with  "  of 
all  suspicion  of  it,"  contains  either  a  misstatement  or  a  mis- 
representation. Some  are  their  own  best  answer.  The 
others  we  proceed  to  dispose  of.  The  self-possession  which 
is  found  so  remarkable  was  simply  the  prostration  of  de- 
spair. In  the  English  Record  OfRce,  there  is  a  letter  writ- 
ten the  day  after  the  murder,  by  the  French  Ambassador 
in  Scotland,  which  was  intercepted  by  the  English  officials. 
M.  de  Clernault  wrote  :."The  fact  (Darnley's  death)  being 


152 


MAKY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


communicated  to  the  Queen,  one  can  scarcely  think  what 
distress  and  agony  it  has  thrown  her  into." 

The  Scottish  lords  leagued  with  Murray  and  with  Both- 
well  for  the  murder  of  Darnley  were  among  the  worst  men 
known  to  history,  and  are  thus  forcibly  portrayed  by  a  late 
English  writer :  — 

"  They  were  barefaced  hars,  they  were  ruthless  foes,  they  were 
Judas-like  Mends.  To  garble  evidence,  to  forge  documents,  to 
put  awkward  witnesses  out  of  the  way  by  the  poison-cup  or  the 
dagger  —  these  were  familiar  acts  to  men  who  frequented  the 
Scottish  court,  who  were  noble  by  birth  and  dignified  by  office. " 

And  these  were  the  men  ^  to  whom  Mary  must  look  in 
such  an  emergency  for  advice  and  aid.  Can  it  be  won- 
dered that  this  young  woman,  the  victim  of  the  three  atro- 
cious plots  of  1565,  1566,  and  1567  —  sick  and  heart- 
broken —  was  not  capable  of  acting  with  the  wisdom  of  a 
judge  and  the  decision  of  a  high-sheriff?  If  Mary  Stuart 
had  been  a  hypocrite,  she  would  have  filled  Holy  rood  with 
clamorous  sobs.  The  council  was  full  of  the  assassins  ;  she 
was  assailed  by  treason,  secret  calumny,  and  English  plots, 
and  without  a  single  friend  on  whose  advice  she  could  rely, 
or  a  single  minister  on  whose  counsel  she  could  lean.  It 
was  of  their  duty  and  their  office  to  take  the  necessary  steps. 
They  did  nothing,  and  in  a  memorial  afterward  addressed 
by  Mary  to  the  different  European  courts,  she  thus  de- 
scribes the  situation  :  "  Her  majesty  could  not  but  marvel 
at  the  little  diligence  they  used,  and  that  they  looked  at 
one  another  as  men  who  wist  not  what  they  say  or  do." 
The  anonymous  placards  could  not  help  her  to  any  knowl- 
edge. She  knew  herself  to  be  innocent,  and  it  was  nat- 
ural not  to  believe  Bothwell  guilty.  Why  should  she  ?  Of 
all  the  noblemen  about  the  court  he  had  never  shown  any 
enmity  to  Darnley,  and  they  had  always  been  on  friendly 
terms.    On  the  other  hand,  the  feud  between  Darnley  and 

1  Huntly,  the  chancellor,  and  Argyll,  the  lord  justice,  were  both  in  the 
plot. 


MARY'S  PROCLAMATION. 


153 


Murray  was  of  ancient  date  and  well-ascertained  origin. 
As  far  back  as  March,  15G4,  Randolph  writes  Cecil :  — 

"  What  opinion  the  young  Lord  (Darnley)  hath  conceived  of 
him  (Murray)  that  lately,  talking  with  Lord  Robert  who  shewed 
him  the  Scottish  map  what  lands  my  Lord  of  Moray  had,  and  in 
what  bounds,  the  Lord  Darnley  said  that  it  was  too  much.  This 
came  to  my  Lord  of  Moray's  ears  and  so  to  the  Queen  who  ad- 
vised my  Lord  Darnley  to  excuse  himself  to  my  Lord  of  Moray. 
These  suspicions  and  heart  burnings  between  these  noblemen 
may  break  out  to  great  inconveniences.' ' 

Randolph  prophesied  truly.  They  did  "  break  out "  "  to 
great  inconveniences." 

In  the  hurry  of  rapid  narrative,  Mr.  Froude  has  forgot- 
ten to  state  that  the  Queen  ordered  a  proclamation  to  be 
immediately  issued,  offering  a  reward  of  £2,000  and  a  pen- 
sion for  life  for  discovery  of  the  murderers,  with  promise 
of  "  free  pardon  to  any  person,  even  if  a  partaker  in  the 
crime,"  adding  that  "  the  Queen's  majesty  unto  whom  of 
all  others,  the  case  was  most  grievous,  would  rather  lose 
life  and  all  than  that  it  should  remain  unpunished."  In 
his  letter  of  March  6  to  Mary,  the  Archbishop  of  Glasgow 
refers  to  this  declaration,  and  the  reference  is  tortured 
into  a  reproach  to  Mary  (ix.  16)  :  "She  preferred  to  be- 
lieve that  she  was  herself  the  second  object  of  the  con- 
spiracy, yet  she  betrayed  neither  surprise  nor  alarm."  ^ 
And  at  the  next  page  we  are  told  of  a  dispatch  containing 
"  a  message  to  her  from  Catherine  de  Medicis  that  her 
husband^s  life  was  in  danger."  Mr.  Froude  is  really  incor- 
rigible. The  message  never  existed  but  in  his  imagina- 
tion. Catherine  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  warn- 
ing, did  not  even  know  that  it  was  given,  and  of  course 
sent  no  message.    He  is  never  at  a  loss  for  an  occasion  to 

1  Mr.  Burton  too  accuses  Mary  of  "  endeavoring  to  stamp,  on  the  first 
news  of  the  tragedy,  the  impression  that  she  had  herself  made  a  providen- 
tial escape."  But  the  Scotch  historian  may  not  be  acquainted  with  the 
warning  letter  from  Paris. 


154 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


couple  Mary  Stuart's  name  with  that  of  Catherine  de  Medi- 
cis,  although  full  well  knowing  there  never  was  any  sympathy 
between  them,  and  that,  next  to  Elizabeth,  she  was  Mary's 
most  pitiless  enemy.  "  She  preferred  to  believe  ! "  There 
was  no  choice  whatever,  for  the  dispatch  (from  Archbishop 
Beaton  in  Paris)  did  not  advise  Mary  that  her  husband's 
life  was  in  danger,  but  that  Mary  Stuart  herself  was  in  dan- 
ger. It  reads  :  "  The  ambassador  of  Spaigne  requests  me 
to  advertise  you  to  tak  heid  to  yourself.  I  have  had  sum 
murmuring  in  likeways  be  others,  that  there  be  some  sur- 
prise to  be  transacted  in  your  contrair,"  etc.  And  when 
later  the  archbishop  thanked  the  Spanish  Ambassador  in 
the  Queen's  name  for  the  warning  he  had  given,  the  ambas- 
sador replied  :  — 

"  Suppose  it  came  too  late,  yet  apprise  her  majesty  that  I  am 
informed,  by  the  same  means  as  I  Avas  before,  that  there  is  still 
some  notable  enterprise  in  hand  against  her  whereof  I  ivish  her  to 
beware  in  time." 

"  She  did  not  attempt  to  fly."  If  she  had,  Mr.  Froude 
is  ready  to  say  that  she  could  not  support  the  presence  of 
her  victim.  "  She  sent  for  none  of  the  absent  noblemen 
to  protect  her,"  and  "  Murray  was  within  reach,  but  she  did 
not  seem  to  desire  his  presence  !  " 

The  historian  who  makes  these  statements  knows  per- 
fectly well  that :  First,  Drury  wrote  Cecil  at  the  time,  "  She 
hath  twice  sent  for  the  Earl  of  Murray,  who  stayeth  himself 
by  my  ladie  in  her  sickness."  Second,  Melville  also  wrote 
to  Cecil  that  "Mary  has  summoned  Murray  and  all  the 
lords,"  and  that,  "  The  Earl  of  Athol  and  the  comptroller 
of  the  royal  household  having  gone  away,  the  Queen  or- 
dered them  back  on  penalty  of  rebellion."  Third,  The  papal 
legate  in  France  wrote  to  the  Duke  of  Tuscany  that  "  Mur- 
ray, summoned  by  the  Queen,  would  not  come."  But,  noth- 
ing daunted,  he  continues  :  "  Lennox,  Darnley's  father,  was 
at  Glasgow  or  near  it,  but  she  did  not  send  for  him." 
This  statement  gives  the  lie  to  Drury,  who  at  the  time  re- 


BELIEF  OF  THE  TIME. 


155 


•ported  to  Cecil  that  Mary  sent  for  Lennox,  and  flatly  con- 
tradicts "  the  stainless,"  in  whose  diary,  filed  as  a  part  of 
the  evidence  against  his  sister,  is  found  an  entry  of  Febru- 
ary 11  (day  of  the  murder)  to  the  effect  that  the  Queen 
sent  for  Lennox.  "  She  spent  the  morning  in  writing  a 
letter  to  the  Archbishop  of  Glasgow."  Positively,  she  did 
not.  Haitian d  wrote  the  letter.  The  Queen  merely 
signed  it. 

The  flourish  of  Simancas  quotation  (Spanish)  at  page 
381  amounts  to  nothing.  Moret  told  De  Silva  nothing,  for 
the  reason  that  he  had  nothing  to  tell.  If  there  was  any- 
thing unfriendly  in  the  tone  of  either  it  was  on  the  part  of 
De  Silva,  not  of  Moret.  The  English  Ambassador  at 
Madrid  had  reported  the  Spanish  council  as  "  disliking  the 
toleration  the  Queen  of  Scots  allows  to  the  Protestant  re- 
ligion in  Scotland,"  and  this  is  the  secret  of  De  Silva's 
coldness  towards  Mary.  Mr.  Froude  has  concealed  the 
fact  that  Mary  refused  to  join  the  Catholic  League,  and  in 
also  concealing  the  cause  of  the  Spanish  ill-will  towards 
Mary,  he  leads  the  reader  to  suppose  that  it  springs  from 
the  belief  in  her  complicity  with  the  murder. 

To  the  attention  of  readers  who  have  studied  the  philos- 
ophy of  history,  we  commend  the  following  entirely  new 
method  of  getting  at  the  heart  of  a  mystery  :  — 

"  It  is  therefore  of  the  highest  importance  to  ascertain  the  im- 
mediate belief  of  the  time  at  which  the  murder  took  place,  while 
party  opinions  were  still  unshaped  and  party  action  undeter- 
mined. The  reader  is  invited  to  follow  the  story  as  it  unfolded 
itself  from  day  to  day.  He  will  be  shown  each  event  as  it  oc- 
curred, with  the  impressions  which  it  formed  upon  the  minds  of 
those  who  had  the  best  means  of  knowing  the  truth."    (ix.  3.) 

We  are  asked  to  receive  as  proofs,  contemporary  im- 
pressions concerning  the  nature  of  a  plot  shrouded  in 
darkness,  where  those  "  who  had  the  best  means  of  know- 
ing the  truth  "  were  precisely  those  whose  lips  were  closely 
sealed ;  and,  finally,  to  accept  as  evidence,  contemporary 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


impressions  fabricated  and  juggled  by  vile  assassins  seek- 
ing to  throw  the  infamy  of  their  crimes  upon  others.  Will 
some  one  take  the  "impressions  which  each  event"  con- 
nected with  the  Nathan  murder  "  formed  upon  the  minds  of 
those  who  had  the  best  means,"  etc.,  and  tell  us  who  killed 
Mr.  Nathan  ?  M.  Wiesener  thus  accurately  characterizes 
this  discovei-y  of  Mr.  Froude :  "  To  penetrate  the  deep 
mystery  of  a  wicked  plot,"  stop  the  first  man  you  meet  in 
the  street,  or  — parlez  au  concierge.  But  if,  as  asserted,  it 
be  true  that  it  is  of  the  highest  importance  to  ascertain 
the  immediate  belief  of  the  time,  why  are  we  not  told  that 
a  published  rumor  accused  Queen  Elizabeth  of  tjie  mur- 
der ;  that  another  one  ascribed  it  to  Catherine  de  Medicis; 
that  Buchanan  states  in  his  "  Detection  "  that  public  report 
in  England  pointed  to  Murray,  Morton,  and  their  friends 
as  the  assassins,  and  that  a  far  better  authority  (Camden) 
confirms  the  same  story  ? 


CHAPTER  XIV. 


THE  WITNf:SSES. 

"  An  English  jury  would  sooner  believe  the  whole  party  perjured  than 
persuade  themselves  that  so  extraordinaiy  a  coincidence  would  have  oc- 
curred." 

In  introducing  the  evidence  of  Crawford,  who  was  sent 
by  Lennox  to  spy  and  report  upon  the  Queen  while  in  Glas- 
gow, Mr.  Froude  informs  us,  in  a  note  (viii.  364),  that 
"  the  conversation  as  related  by  Darnley  to  Crawford  tallies 
exactly  with  that  given  by  Mary  herself  to  Bothwell  in  the 
casket-letters."  Tallies  exactly  ?  Why,  it  tallies  miracu- 
lously. The  conversation  between  Mary  and  Darnley  oc- 
curred in  the  last  week  of  January,  1567.  Crawford's  dep- 
osition was  not  taken  until  the  summer  of  1568,  when  it 
•was  given  at  the  solicitation  of  Lennox  and  Murray's  secre- 
tary (Wood),  who  wrote  to  Crawford  requesting  him  "  by 
all  possible  methods  to  search  for  more  matters  against  her," 
and  specially  to  report  everything  he  could  ascertain  as  to 
her  coming  to  Glasgow,  the  company  that  came  with  her," 
his  discourse  with  her,  all  that  passed  between  her  and  the 
King,  if  she  used  to  send  any  messages  to  Edinburgh,  by  whom 
she  sent  them,  etc.  Crawford  made  his  statement  —  a  very 
full  one,  but  in  it  is  wholly  silent  as  to  messengers  sent  by 
the  Queen.  As  the  spy  for  Mary's  enemy  Lennox,  he  would 
scarcely  have  overlooked  her  dispatching  missives  to  Edin- 
burgh. But  the  casket-letter  story  makes  her  send  off  two 
letters  from  Glasgow,  one  by  Paris  and  another  by  Beaton, 
and  although  both  these  men  were  alive  and  easily  obtained 
for  the  Westminster  examination,  they  were  not  produced. 

But  to  return  to  "  tallies  exactly."    It  does,  and  for  the 


158 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


excellent  reason  that  the  casket-letter  describhig  the  same 
interview  set  forth  in  Crawford's  deposition  was  manu- 
factured from  that  deposition.  Both  deposition  and  letter 
recount  the  same  conversation-  Crawford  claims  to  repeat 
what  Darnley  told  him  of  it,  and  the  casket-letter  is  given 
as  Mary  Stuart's  relation  of  the  same  interview.  It  would 
be  but  natural  that  Crawford's  version,  passing  through  two 
memories,  Darnley's  and  his  own,  should  differ  from  Mary's ; 
the  more  so  as  the  latter  is  pretended  to  have  been  written 
in  January,  1567,  while  Crawford's  deposition  was  given 
eighteen  months  later,  in  1568.  Such  difference  would  be 
inevitable,  and  the  variations  in  phraseology  important. 
Therefore  we  say  that  "exact  tally,"  under  the  circum- 
stances, is  little  less  than  miraculous,  if  not  the  result  of 
forgery.  We  subjoin  specimens  of  the  deposition  and  of 
the  letter.  If  two  short-hand  reporters  had  been  present 
at  the  conversation  they  could  not  have  produced  versions 
so  nearly  alike.  It  will  be  remarked  that  not  only  is  the 
agreement  of  the  three  sources,  Darnley,  Crawford,  and 
Mary,  perfect  as  to  substance,  but  that  the  forms  of  ex- 
pression are  identical.    Mr.  Hosack  well  observes, — 

"  That  any  two  persons  should  agree,  with  such  perfect  accu- 
racy, in  relating  from  memory  a  conversation  of  this  length,  is  a 
circumstance  that  must  strike  with  astonishment  every  one  who 
has  marked  the  discrepancies  which  every  day  occur  in  courts  of 
justice  between  intelligent  witnesses  even  on  the  simplest  matters 
of  fact."    (p.  193.) 


CRAWFORD'S  DEPOSITION. 

"  You  asked  me  what  I  meant 
by  the  cruelty  specified  in  my 
letters;,  it  proceedeth  of  you 
only,  that  will  not  accept  my 
offers  and  repentance.  I  con- 
fess that  I  have  failed  in  some 
things,  and  yet  greater  faults 
have  been  made  to  you  sundry 


ALLEGED   LETTER   OF  THE 
QUEEN. 

"  You  asked  me  what  I  mean 
by  the  cruelty  contained  in  my 
letter;  it  is  of  you  alone,  that 
will  not  accept  my  offers  and  re- 
pentance. I  confess  that  I  have 
failed,  but  not  into  that  which 
I  ever  denied ;  and  such  like 


Crawford's  deposition. 


159 


times,  which  you  have  forgiven. 
I  am  but  young,  and  you  will 
say  you  have  forgiven  me  divers 
times.  May  not  a  man  of  my 
age,  for  hick  of  counsel,  of  which 
I  am  very  destitute,  fall  twice 
or  thrice,  and  yet  repent  and  be 
chastised  by  experience? 

"  If  I  have  made  any  faile 
that  you  think  a  faile,  howsoever 
it  be,  I  crave  your  pardone,  and 
protest  that  I  shall  never  faile 
againe.  I  desire  no  other  thinge 
but  that  we  may  be  together  as 
husband  and  wife.  And  if  ye 
will  not  consent  hereto,  I  desire 
never  to  rise  forthe  of  this  bed. 
Therefore  I  praye  you  give  me 
an  answer  hereunto,"  etc. 


has  failed  to  sundry  of  our  sub- 
jects, which  you  have  forgiven. 
I  am  young.  You  will  say  that 
you  have  forgiven  me  ofttimes, 
and  that  yet  I  return  to  my 
faults.  May  not  a  man  of  my 
age,  for  lack  of  counsel,  fall 
twice  or  thrice,  or  in  lack  of  his 
promise,  and  at  last  repent  him- 
self, and  be  chastised  by  expe- 
rience ? 

"  If  I  may  obtain  pardon,  I 
protest  I  shall  never  make  fault 
again.  And  I  crave  no  other 
thing  but  that  we  may  be  at  bed 
and  board  together  as  husband 
and  wife ;  and  if  ye  will  not 
consent  hereunto,  I  shall  never 
rise  out  of  this  bed.  I  pray 
now,  tell  me  your  resolution,'* 
etc. 


The  device  of  the  Scotch  forgers  was  clever.  Crawford's 
declaration  once  made,  the  idea  readily  suggested  itself 
to  the  conspirators  of  reproducing  an  account  of  the  in- 
terview, as  though  written  by  the  Queen  to  Bothwell, 
thus  giving  an  air  of  vraisemhlance  to  the  forged  letters 
most  desirable  for  their  purpose.  It  was  done,  but  the 
forger  stuck  too  closely  to  the  original.  We  are  so  fortu- 
nate as  to  be  able  to  cite  on  this  point  the  admirably  ex- 
pressed (as  to  suspicious  concordance  of  several  versions) 
opinion  of  a  distinguished  writer,  who  sums  up  the  argu- 
ment in  a  masterly  manner,  and  we  ask  for  it  the  reader's 
special  attention.  He  supposes  the  description  of  an  inci- 
dent by  three  different  persons,  and  says: — * 

"  If  we  were  to  find  but  a  single  paragraph  in  which  two  out 
of  three  agreed  verbally,  we  should  regard  it  as  a  very  strange 
coincidence.    If  all  three  agreed  verbally,  we  should  feel  certain  it 


160 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


teas  more  than  accident.  If  throughout  their  letters  there  was  a 
recurring  series  of  such  passages,  no  doubt  would  be  left  in  the 
mind  of  any  one  that  either  the  three  correspondents  had  seen 
each  other's  letters,  or  that  each  had  had  before  him  some  com- 
mon narrative  Avhich  he  had  incorporated  in  his  own  account.  It 
might  be  doubtful  which  of  these  two  explanations  was  the  true 
one ;  but  that  one  or  other  of  them  was  true,  unless  we  suppose  a 
miracle,  is  as  certain  as  any  conclusion  in  human  things  can  be 
certain  at  3ll.  And  were  the  wi-iters  themselves,  with  their  closest 
fi-iends  and  comj^anions,  to  swear  that  there  had  been  no  inter- 
communication, and  no  story  preexisting  of  which  they  had  made 
use,  and  that  each  had  written  hand  fide  from  his  own  original 
observation,  an  English  jury  would  sooner  believe  the  whole  party 
perjured  than  persuade  themselves  that  so  extraordinary  a  coinci- 
dence tcould  have  occurred." 

This  reasoning  is  incontrovertible.  Now  apply  it  to  the 
case  under  consideration. 

The  conversation  between  Darnley  and  Mary  is  the  in- 
cident. The  Glasgow  letter  is  one  version  of  it;  Dam- 
ley's  narrative  to  Crawford  is  another,  and  Crawford's  dep- 
osition the  third.  Thus  the  writer  w^  cite  has  admirably 
demonstrated  that  unless  ice  suppose  a  miracle,  one  of  these 
accounts  (letter  and  deposition)  was  copied  from  the  other. 
We  are  also  entirely  of  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Burton,  who 
finds  that  the  casket-letter  and  Crawford's  testimony  agree 
with  an  overwhelming  exactness." 

For  the  authority  cited  as  of  the  opinion  that  an  English 
jury  would  sooner  believe  the  whole  party  perjured,  etc., 
the  passage  may  be  found  at  p.  210  of  Short  Studies  on 
Great  Subjects,"  by  '-James  Anthony  Froude,  M.  A." 

In  introducing  the  deposition  of  Paris  (Nicholas  Hu- 
bert), details  are  prudently  avoided.  "Paris  made  two 
depositions,  the  first  not  touching  Mary,  the  second  fatally 
implicating  her."  Yery  true.  The  first  deposition  was  a 
voluntary  one  ;  but  he  was  tortured  before  the  second  was 
taken.  This  last  was  read  over  in  his  presence.  He 
signed  it,  and  was  then  executed,  that  there  might  be  no 


DEPOSITION  OF  PARIS. 


161 


retraction  or  contradiction."  (ix.  4.)  Surely  the  precau- 
tion was  radical.  But  Paris  could  not  have  signed  the 
dejjositio7i,  nor  known  what  it  contained,  for  he  could 
neither  write  nor  read.  "  The  haste  and  concealment," 
continues  Mr.  Froude,  "were  merely  intended  to  baffle 
Elizabeth."  Then  there  was  "  haste  and  concealment !  " 
Let  us  see.  Murray  gave  out  that  Paris  was  arrested  in 
Denmark  and  brought  to  Scotland  in  June,  1569,  that  his 
first  deposition  was  taken  August  9,  the  second  August  10, 
and  that  he  was  executed  August  16,  1569.  There  is  no 
record  of  his  trial,  no  statement  as  to  who  interrogated  him, 
nor  h/ what  court  he  was  condemned;  nor  is  there  any  ju- 
dicial or  other  proper  legal  authentication  of  his  deposi- 
tion. Murray  wrote  to  Elizabeth  that  Paris  "suffered 
death  by  order  of  law  "  —  law  here,  we  suppose,  standing 
for  "  Murray."  All  others  arrested  fOr  the  Darnley  mur- 
der were  tried  and  executed  in  Edinburgh  ;  but  Paris  was 
secretly  taken  away  from  there,  secretly  tortured,  secretly 
tried,  if  tried  at  all,  by  Murray's  orders,  and  finally  exe- 
cuted at  St.  Andrew's,  Murray's  own  castle.  On  the  scaf- 
fold, he  "  declared  before  God  that  he  never  carried  any  such 
letters,  nor  that  the  Queen  was  participant  nor  of  coun- 
sel in  the  cause."  (Ty tier,  vol.  i.  p.  29.)  But,  more  than  this, 
Mr.  Hosack,  in  his  late  work  on  Mary  Stuart,  proves,  from 
a  document  lately  discovered  in  the  Danish  archives,  that 
Paris  was  delivered  to  Murray,  not  in  the  summer  of  1569, 
as  Murray  represented,  but  eight  months  earlier,  namely, 
on  the  30th  October,  1568,  before  the  Westminster  proceed- 
ings had  yet  opened.  Paris  is  the  only  witness  made  to 
charge  the  Queen  directly  with  adultery  and  murder.  Mur- 
ray could  easily  have  produced  him  at  Westminster,  and 
was  not  prevented  by  any  delicacy  of  feeling,  for  these 
were  the  very  charges  he  himself  brought  against  his  sis- 
ter. Meantime,  the  fact  that  Paris  was  then  in  Murray's 
prison  was  kept  a  profound  secret  until  long  after  the  com- 
mission had  adjourned.  The  paper  called  the  second  depo- 
11 


162 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


sition  of  Paris  was  written  by  one  Robert  Ramsay,^  and 
witnessed  by  two  of  Murray's  dependents,  both,  like  him- 
self, pensioners  of  Elizabeth,  and  prominent  among  the 
worst  enemies  of  Mary.  When  the  depositions  were  sent 
to  London,  the  first  was  made  known,  but  the  second  was 
concealed,  filed  away  among  Cecil's  papers,  and  not  made 
public  until  1725.  A  distinguished  English  historian  is  of 
the  opinion  that  a  charge  of  crime  kept  back  or  concealed 
for  twenty -five  years  cannot  be  relied  upon  as  evidence. 
What,  then,  are  we  to  think  of  one  concealed  for  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty-six  years?  The  historian  we  refer  to  is 
Mr.  Froude,  who  remarks  upon  the  accusation  brought 
against  Leicester  of  the  murder  of  his  wife,  Amy  Rob- 
sart : — 

"  The  charity  of  later  years  has  inclined  to  believe  that  it  was 
a  calumny  invented,  etc.,  etc. ;  and  as  it  was  not  published  till 
d  quarter  of  a  century  after  the  crime  —  if  crime  there  was  —  had 
been  committed,  it  will  not  he  relied  upon  in  this  place  for  evidence." 
(vii.  288.) 

You  see,  we  must  draw  the  line  somewhere.  Against  an 
edifying  English  gentleman  like  Leicester,  we  cannot  admit 
testimony  after,  say,  twenty  years ;  but  it  will  give  us  great 
pleasure  to  receive  any  evidence  against  Mary  Stuart  to  the 
end  of  time.  The  second  deposition,  taken  August  10,  was 
secretly  sent  up  to  Cecil  by  Murray  on  the  loth  of  October, 
1569,  "  gif  furder  pruif  be  requirit."  Cecil  at  once  saw 
that  he  could  make  no  public  use  of  a  document  like  this 
taken  by  and  before  such  notorious  agents  of  Murray  as 
Buchanan,  Wood,  and  Ramsay,  and,  says  Chalmers,  "  he 
desired  the  hypocritical  regent  of  Scotland  to  send  him  a 
certified  copy  of  the  same  declaration  of  Paris.  Where- 
upon a  notary,  one  Alexander  Hay,  obliges  Murray^  by  cer- 
tifying a  copy  as  true,  but,  unfortunately  for  the  credit  of 
the  document,  he  omitted  the  names  of  the  witnesses  to  the 
original  paper,  and  represented  himself  as  sole  witness  to 

1  "Writer  of  this  declaration,  servant  to  my  Lord  Regent's  Grace." 


DEPOSITION  OF  PARIS. 


163 


the  declaration  of  Paris ! "  Hay  was  clerk  of  Alurray's 
Privy  Council. 

Referring  to  this  deposition  of  Paris,  the  "  North  Ameri- 
can Review  "  (vol.  xxxiv.)  says  it  was  "  wrung  from  him  by 
torture,  by  those  most  deeply  interested  in  finding  Mary 
guilty,  ....  under  circumstances  so  suspicious  through- 
out that  such  evidence  would  not  now  be  admitted  by  a 
country  justice  in  case  of  trover." 

"  Such  testimony  as  that  of  Paris  is  justly  rejected  both 
by  the  Roman  and  our  own  Scottish  laws,"  says  Bishop 
Keith,  Primate  of  the  Scottish  Episcopal  Church.  He 
further  exposes  its  inconsistencies  in  detail,  and  adds,  "  his 
very  declaration  hammered  out  as  it  now  stands,  carries 
along  some  things  that  have  not  the  best  aspect  in  the 
world." 

But  not  all  "  the  charity  of  later  years,"  nor  Mr.  Fronde's 
lofty  views  of  the  mission  of  the  historian,  have  been  able 
to  induce  him  to  give  any  intimation  to  his  reader  that  the 
authenticity  of  this  incredible  narrative  of  Paris  was  ever 
questioned.  On  the  contrary,  as  with  the  casket-letters, 
Paris  is  so  interwoven  with  Froude  in  the  text  that  the 
reader  nnist  be  specially  attentive  if  he  wishes  to  distinguish 
one  from  the  other. 

If  Mary  Stuart  was  guilty  as  charged,  and  Paris  had  the 
knowledge  of  her  guilt  as  he  is  made  to  state  it  in  his  second 
deposition,  the  shocking  fact  of  the  participation  of  a  wife, 
and  that  wife  a  queen,  in  the  murder  of  her  husband,  would 
naturally  have  been  the  salient  feature  of  his  first  depo- 
sition. And  yet  in  that  deposition,  in  which  he  appears 
to  have  told  his  story  in  his  own  way,  he  says  nothing  to 
implicate  the  Queen.  The  second  deposition  is  taken  on 
interrogatories,  and  not  only  makes  the  strongest  possible 
case  against  the  Queen,^  but  strongly  implicates  Maitland, 

1  As,  for  instance,  Paris  is  supposed  to  be  sent  by  Bothwell  to  the  Queen 
with  this  message  which  certainly'  has  the  merit  of  perfect  freedom  from 
ambiguity:  "Madame,  Mons.  Bothwell  has  ordered  me  to  brj.ng  him  the 


164 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


Huntly,  Argyll,  and  others  who,  by  a  singular  coincidence, 
had  lately  broken  with  Murray  and  gone  over  to  the  Queen. 
This  deposition  is  dated  August  10,  1569,  more  than  six 
months  after  the  Westminster  conference,  and  although  it 
purports  to  have  been  taken  in  presence  of  Buchanan,  he 
says  not  a  word  concerning  it  in  his  "  Detection."  In  fact, 
neither  he  nor  Cecil  dared  bring  it  forward.  The  matter 
of  the  deposition  was  too  improbable  to  impose  on  any  one  ; 
the  form  showed  fraud,  and  the  dates  were  at  variance  with 
themselves  and  those  of  Murray's  journal.  Thus,  Paris 
says  he  accompanied  the  Queen  to  Glasgow,  remained 
"  two  days  there,"  when  the  Queen  sent  him  to  Edinburgh 
with  a  letter  to  Bothwell.  But  here  Mr.  Froude  flatly  con- 
tradicts his  own  witness.  He  makes  Paris  arrive  at  Glas- 
gow Friday,  January  25th,  and  sends  him  off  with  the  letter 
the  next  morning  (Saturday  26th).  And  now  comes  "  the 
stainless,"  who  contradicts  them  both.  He  deposited  with 
the  Commissioners  at  Westminster  his  own  journal,  or 
diary  of  events  in  Scotland,  from  the  birth  of  the  prince  to 
the  Battle  of  Langside,  to  be  used  as  documentary  evidence 
in  the  case.  According  to  the  diary,  Mary  arrived  at  Glas- 
gow Thursday  f  23d),  and  left  on  Monday  (27th).  "  In  this 
time  she  wrote  her  bylle  and  other  letters  to  Bothwell." 

But  the  dates  fixed  by  the  first  Glasgow  letter  throw  all 
the  foregoing  dates  into  a  hopeless  muddle.  Mr.  Froude 
makes  the  Queen  begin  her  letter  on  Friday  and  send  it 
off  on  Saturday  morning,  —  Paris  reaching  Edinburgh  Sat- 
urday night,  fifty  miles  in  dead  of  winter  (viii.  371)  ;  but 
the  letter  itself  would  show  that  it  was  not  begun  until 
Saturday  if,  as  Mr.  Froude  has  it,  she  arrived  on  Friday. 
It  contains  these  expressions  in  the  first  part  of  the  letter  : 
"  The  King  sent  for  Joachim  yesterday"  and  "  he  confessed 

keys  of  your  room ;  he  wishes  to  arrange  something  there,  that  is,  to  blow 
up  the  King  with  gunpowder."  Thus  Bothwell  and  the  Queen  form  a 
secret  plan  to  murder  Darnley,  and,  lest  the  trifle  might  slip  their  memories, 
interchange  messages  by  servants  to  remind  each  other  of  the  little  arrange- 
ment! 


-  DEPOSITION-  OF  PARIS. 


165 


it,  but  it  was  the  morning  after  my  coming."  Then  at  the 
close  of  the  first  half :  "  Send  you  good  rest,  as  I  go  to 
seek  mine,  till  to-niorrow  in  the  morning,  when  I  will  end 
my  bylle ; "  and  at  the  end  of  the  second  part,  "  I  had 
yesternight  no  paper."  This  brings  the  completion  of  the 
letter  to  Sunday  afternoon,  when,  as  we  have  seen,  Mr. 
Froude's  Paris  has  it  delivered  the  day  previous  in  Edin- 
burgh, while  the  second  letter,  dated  "  this  Saturday  morn- 
ing," is  already  written  and  dispatched  by  Beaton  the 
previous  day.  Mr.  Froude's  Paris  delivers  his  letter  to 
Bothwell  on  Simday,  waits  for  the  reply,  and  "  rode  back 
through  the  night  to  his  mistress "  —  fifty  miles  in  one 
winter's  night !  But  here  Mr.  Froude  is  utterly  crushed 
out  by  an  authority  he  dare  not  question  —  Murray's 
diary :  — 

January  24th.  Bothwell  "  took  journey  towards  Liddes- 
dale," — a  distance  of  seventy  miles. 

January  iWi  (Tuesday).  "  Earl  Bothwell  came  back 
from  Liddesdale  ;  "  so  that,  according  to  Mr.  Froude,  Paris 
delivered  a  letter  to  Bothwell  at  Edinburg  on  Sunday, 
when,  if  he  will  permit  us  to  take  Murray's  word,  Both- 
well  was  seventy  miles  away. 

The  exposure  of  irreconcilable  inconsistencies  such  as 
these  could  be  continued  indefinitely.  It  was  its  flagrant 
contradiction  of  Murray's  diary  that  mainly  prevented  the 
use  of  the  Paris  deposition. 

It  may  now  be  looked  upon  as  clearly  ascertained,  that 
although  the  explosion  is  said  to  have  been  caused  solely 
by  the  powder  placed  by  Bothwell's  men,  yet,  unknown  to 
Bothwell,  and  before  Darnley  came  to  Kirk  o'  Field,  the 
foundation  walls  were  undermined,  and,  in  the  language  of 
the  indictment  against  Morton,  the  powder  was  placed  by 
him  and  his  accomplices  "  under  the  ground,  and  angular 
stones,  and  within  the  vaults,  in  low  and  dark  parts  and 
places  thereof  to  that  effect."  Did  Mary  Stuart  have  this 
powder  thus  placed,  and  then  leave  Holy  rood  to  go  there 
and  sleep  directly  over  it  several  nights  in  succession  ? 


166 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


The  explosion  was  terrific,  and  the  foundation  stones,  of 
enormous  size  and  weight,  were  blown  into  the  air ;  but 
certainly  not  by  Bothwell's  powder,  which  was  in  the  story 
.over  the  cellar. 

It  is  also  clear  from  the  evidence  that  Darnley  and  his 
servant  (Taylor)  were  not  killed  by  the  explosion,  but  were 
strangled  or  hurked^  and  carried  to  the  spot  in  the  orchard 
—  eighty  yards  from  the  house  —  where  they  were  found 
without  trace  of  burn,  smoke,  or  contusion  upon  them. 
Nor  are  these  facts  at  all  disturbed  by  the  belief  of  Both- 
well's men  (Hey  and  Hepburn)  that  they  blew  up  the  house 
with  Darnley  in  it.^  There  was  plot,  inner  plot,  and  side 
plot,  —  with,  probably,  a  branch  plot  never  clearly  revealed, 
and  indicated  only  by  the  appearance  of  Ker  of  Faudonside,^ 
who  rode  hard  from  the  English  Border  at  the  risk  of  his 
life  in  order  to  be  present  that  night.  He  is  the  man  who 
at  the  Riccio  nuirder  drew  a  pistol  on  the  Queen.  Was 
he  too  an  accomplice  of  ISIary  Stuart  ?  The  clumsy  Both- 
well  was  thrust  forward  by  his  sharper  fellow-conspirators. 
The  mine  placed  by  Morton's  agent,  Douglass,  Maitland, 
and  the  two  Balfours  (one  of  whom  owned  the  house),  apd 
of  which  Bothwell  was  kept  in  ignorance,  was  to  make  sure 
work  of  both  Darnley  and  the  Queen,  and  explains  the 
warning  ^  that  reached  Mary  from  Paris  a  few  hours  after 
the  catastrophe.'*  , 

The  side  plot  was  that  carried  into  execution  by  the 
Archibald  Douglass  party.  Douglass  was  the  man  seen  in 
armor,  silk  cloak,  and  velvet  slippers,  one  of  which  he  lost 

1  "  He  knew  nothing  but  that  Darnley  was  blown  into  the  air,  for  he  was 
handled  with  no  man's  hand  that  he  saw."  —  Hepburn's  Declavdiion. 

2  "  Sir  Andrew  Carr  with  others  was  on  horseback  near  unto  the  place 
for  aid  to  the  cruel  enterprise  if  need  had  been,"'  writes  Drury  from  the 
Border. 

3  Ante,  p.  154-. 

4  For  tiie  mine  it  is  clearly  shown  that  James  Balfour  furnished  sixty 
pounds  of  powder  (which  he  paid  for  in  oil),  and  Archibald  Douglass  a  bar- 
rel of  powder. 


HOW  DARNLEY  WAS  KILLED. 


167 


on  the  oround.  This  was  the  band  in  whose  hands  "  the 
king  was  long  of  dying,  and  to  his  strength  made  debate 
for  life."  (Drury  to  Cecil.)  These  were  the  men  to  whom 
were  addressed  the  words  heard  by  some  women  dwelling 
near  the  garden  :  "  Ah,  my  kinsmen,  have  mercy  on  me 
for  love  of  Him  who  had  mercy  on  us  all."  Archibald 
Douglass  was  a  blood-kinsman  of  Darnley,  and  Morton 
on  his  trial  stated,  "  Mr.  Archibald  then  after  the  deed  was 
done,  shewed  me  that  he  was  at  the  deed-doing."  All  the 
contemporary  evidence  overwhelmingly  bears  out  this  ver- 
sion of  Darnley's  death.  "  He  was  strangled."  Melville 
asserts  it.  Knox,  who  had  means  of  knowing,  believed  it. 
Herries  details  it,  and  Drury  states  it  under  circumstances 
going  to  show  that  he  had  his  information  from  Murray. 
It  is  true  that  Buchanan  also  asserts  it,  but  his  testimony 
is  only  of  importance  in  so  far  as  it  is  corroborated  by  some 
credible  witness.  Great  efforts  were  made  by  the  chief 
conspirators  to  suppress  all  intelligence  as  to  the  real  man- 
ner of  Darnley's  death,  in  order  to  accumulate  suspicion 
directly  on  Bothwell  and  indirectly  on  the  Queen  ;  and  Mr. 
Froude  is  content  with  Murray's  statement :  "  Some  said 
that  they  were  smothered  in  their  sleep  —  some  say  that 
they  were  caught  and  strangled." 

The  murderers  secured  Darnley's  papers,  and  among 
them  the  letter  referred  to  by  Murray  in  his  diary  as  written 
by  the  Queen  ^  to  Darnley,  February  7.    Mr.  Caird  ^  states 

1  "  She  confronted  the  king  and  my  Lord  of  Holvruindhouse  conforme  to 
her  letter  written  the  nycht  before."  Mr.  Froude  describes  Robert  Stuart 
as  '*  Abbot  of  St.  Cross  "  —  translating  Ste.  Croix  by  St.  Cross,  instead  of 
Holyrood. 

2  Mary  Stuart.  Her  Guilt  or  Innocence.  An  Inquiry  into  the  Secret 
History  of  her  Times.  By  Alexander  Mcl^eel  Caird.  Edinliurgh :  1869. 
Mr.  Caird's  work  does  not  undertake  to  recount  the  life  of  Mary  Stuart, 
but  is  mainly  occupied  with  examination  of  the  questions  involved  in  the 
murder  of  Darnley  and  the  marriage  with  Bothwell.  The  Preface  to  his 
second  edition  exposes  several  of  Mr.  Froude's  misstatements,  and  seriously 
damages  his  reputation  as  a  historian.  The  work  is  written  with  spirit  and 
an  evident  faraiharity  with  the  authorities.  It  is  a  most  valuable  historical 
contribution. 


168 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


good  reasons  for  believing  the  letter  commencing  J^aye 
veille  plus  tard^  etc.,  to  be  the  one  then  written  to  Darnley. 
It  is  the  same  in  which  she  says,  "  Like  a  bird  escaped 
from  the  cage,  or  the  dove  without  its  mate,  I  shall  remain 
alone  to  lament,"  etc.,  of  which  the  forgers  impudently  made 
in  the  copy  presented  at  York,  "  Mak  gude  watch.  If  the 
bird  escape  out  of  the  cage,"  etc.  —  claiming  that  the  cau- 
tion was  addressed  by  Mary  to  Bothwell  concerning  Darn- 
ley. 

In  addition  to  the  motives  of  revenge  for  Darnley's  be- 
trayal of  his  associates  in  the  Riccio  murder,  and  of  impa- 
tience at  the  overbearing  insolence  of  "  a  young  fool  and 
proud  tyrant,"  as  expressed  in  the  bond  of  the  nobility  seen 
by  Ormiston,  the  principal  lords,  Murray,  Mai tl and,  and 
others,  had  the  more  powerful  incentive  of  removing  him  as 
the  main  obstacle  to  the  confirmation  of  the  valuable  grants 
of  crown  lands  bestowed  upon  them  (Murray  most  of  all) 
by  the  Queen,  which  by  law  she  might  yet  revoke  before 
reaching  the  age  of  twenty-five,  and  which,  had  Darnley 
lived,  she  certainly  would  have  revoked.  We  shall  see 
Killigrew  come  up  from  London  to  "  inquire  into  the  truth," 
and  hear  these  very  men,  with  Murray  at  their  head,  tell 
him  "  there  are  great  suspicions  but  no  proof,"  when  they 
personally  knew  every  man  engaged  in  the  murder.  Mur- 
ray tells  De  Silva  (ix.  37)  that  there  were  from  thirty  to 
forty  persons  concerned  in  it.  For  nine  months,  Murray 
had  been  the  Queen's  Prime  Minister  and  principal  reli- 
ance in  executive  matters,  and,  as  it  was  then  phrased, "  had 
the  whole  guiding  of  the  Queen  and  her  realm."  For  nine 
months  he  had  been  in  constant  attendance  at  court ;  but 
only  a  few  hours  before  the  murder  suddenly  leaves,  in  spite 
of  Mary's  urgent  request  that  he  should  remain  for  an  im- 
portant diplomatic  reception.  Being  gone,  he  refuses  to 
return,  although  repeatedly  entreated  thereto.  Mr.  Froude 
reluctantly  admits  (ix.  35)  :  — 

"  It  is  unlikely  that  he  should  have  been  entirely  ignorant  of  a 


DYING  DEPOSITIONS. 


169 


conspiracy  to  wliicli  the  whole  court  in  some  degree  were  parties. 
His  departure  from  Edinbm'gh  on  the  morning  of  the  murder  sug- 
gests that  he  was  aware  that  some  dark  deed  was  intended,  which 
he  could  not  prevent," 

Murray's  absence  from  Edinburgh  generally  coincided 
with  some  catastrophe.  "  Perhaps  "  he  knew  Darnley  was  * 
to  be  murdered.  He  was,  we  are  assured,  unfortunately 
"  unable  to  interfere."  The  Queen's  brother,  the  Prime 
Minister,  the  most  powerful  noble,  the  most  influential  man 
in  all  Scotland  —  "  unable  to  interfere  "  to  prevent  a  delib- 
erate murder  !  Not  afraid,  take  notice,  but  unable.  Mr. 
Froude  is  right ;  Murray  luas  unable  to  interfere,  for  he  was 
banded  with  Morton,  Maitland,  Bothwell,  and  the  rest  to 
take  Darnley's  life. 

The  assertion  (viii.  361)  that  "  the  dying  depositions  of 
the  instruments  of  the  crime  taken  on  the  steps  of  the 
scaffold,"  support  the  accusation  against  Mary  Stuart,  is, 
if  possible,  still  more  unfortunate  than  the  accompanying 
statement  of  "  keenest  inquiry  "  into  the  genuineness  of 
the  casket-letters.  The  "  keenest  inquiry  "  was  no  inquiry 
worth  the  name.  As  to  dying  depositions,  let  us  see.  We 
find  —  on  the  best  authority,  that  of  Drury  (Murray  ?)  — 
Captain  Cullen  designated  as  one  who  notoriously  "  revealed 
the  whole  circumstances'*  We  have  seen  that  after  Both- 
well  was  a  fugitive  and  the  Queen  a  prisoner.  Captain  Cul- 
len was  killed  in  his  dungeon  and  his  confession  suppressed 
by  Morton  and  Maitland.  But  at  that  time,  it  may  be 
urged,  Murray  had  not  returned  from  France.  Later,  all 
powerful  as  Regent,  we  shall  doubtless  see  him  arrest  and 
punish  the  murderers.  But  Cecil's  information  to  his  friend 
the  English  Ambassador  at  Paris,  as  to  what  Murray  was 
about  when  he  went  to  Edinburgh  to  meet  Killigrew,  just 
after  Darnley's  death,  accurately  prefigures  his  course : 
"  Morton,  Murray,  and  others  mean  to  be  at  Edinburgh 
very  shortly,  as  they  pretend  to  search  out  the  malefactor  J'  ^ 
.  1  See  Appendix  No.  6. 


170 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


Cullen  being  put  out  of  the  way,  let  us  inquire  as  to  the 
fate  of  the  other  prisoners.  With  indecent  haste,  Murray 
caused  Dalgleish,  Powrie,  Hay,  and  Hepburn  to  be  tried, 
convicted,  and  executed  on  the  same  day.  Dalgleish  was 
afterwards  said  to  have  been  the  bearer  of  the  famous  sil- 
ver casket.  On  the  scaffold  Hay  and  Hepburn  publicly 
accused  as  parties  to  the  murder  several  friends  of  Murray, 
and  they  affirmed  that  the  Queen  to  their  knowledge  knew 
nothing  of  the  plot.'^  All  these  men  had  been  in  prison  for 
from  three  to  six  months  before  their  execution.  They 
were  known  to  have  accused  the  leading  lords  in  their  con- 
fessions, but  these  confessions  were  in  part  suppressed,  and 
only  such  portions  produced  by  Murray  as  made  no  men- 
tion of  his  friends  and  accused  Both  well  alone.  The  "  Di- 
urnal of  Occurrents,"  contemporary  Puritan  authority,  re- 
cords that  John  Hay  confessed  before  the  whole  people  that 
a  bond  for  the  King's  murder  was  made  by  Bothwell,  iffunt- 
ly,  Argyll,  Maitland,  and  Balfour, "  with  divers  other  nobles 
of  this  realm."  And,  adds  the  chronicler,  all  these  nobles 
but  Bothwell  being  then  in  Edinburgh,  "  incontinently  they 
departed  therefrom,  which  makes  the  charge  against  them 
the  more  probable."  Leslie,  Bishop  of  Ross,  told  Murray 
and  his  confederates,  — 

"  We  can  tell  you  that  John  Hay,  that  Powry,  that  Dalgleish, 
and  last  of  all  that  Paris,  all  being  put  to  death  for  this  crime, 
took  God  to  record  at  the  time  of  their  death,  that  this  murder 
was  by  your  counsel,  invention,  and  drift  committed.  Who  also 
declared  that  they  never  knew  the  Queen  to  be  participant  or 
aware  thereof." 

This  challenge  was  published  by  Leslie  in  his  "  Defence 
of  Queen  Mary's  Honour"  in  1671 ;  and  Bishop  Keith  very 
forcibly  remarks  that  as  this  was  before  Buchanan  began 

1  We  are  aware  that  Hepburn  is  claimed  to  have  told  Crawford  that  the 
Queen  was  implicated,  but  this  rests  on  Crawford's  verbal  statement,  while 
Hepburn's  deposition,  taken  by  those  most  anxious  to  incriminate  the  Queen, 
contains  not  a  word  against  her. 


DYING  DECLARATIONS. 


171 


to  write  his  history  of  Scotland,  it  might  have  been  ex- 
pected he  should  take  some  notice  of  this  bold  affirmation 
as  to  declarations  made  on  the  scaffold  by  dying  witnesses 
of  the  Queen's  innocence,  "  and  have  obtained  proper  cre- 
dentials from  persons  then  alive,  and  present  at  the  execu- 
tion, for  silencing  the  Bishop  of  Ross." 

"  But  of  this,  no  word  drops  from  him  at  all ;  nay,  which  is  not 
a  little  observable,  he  does. not  in  the  least  fortify  his  own  narra- 
tion by  the  testimony  of  this  Frenchman  (Paris),  though  he  had 
been  at  pains  in  his  wicked  '  Detection '  to  take  together  all 
such  reports  as  he  thought  would  any  way  contribute  to  stain 
the  Queen."  i 

Camden  in  his  "  Annals  "  also  states  the  fact  of  the  dying 
declarations  of  these  witnesses  as  to  the  innocence  of  the 
Queen.  To  the  same  effect  also  is  the  contemporary  au- 
thority of  the  declaration  made  at  the  convention  of  Scotch 
nobles  in  September,  1568,  in  which  they  charge  the  rebel 
lords  with  offering  remission  of  the  crime  of  which  they 
had  convicted  sundry  persons,  "  if  they  would  say  that  her 
Grace  was  guilty  thereof.  .  .  .  they  (the  lords)  were  guilty 
thereof  only,  as  was  deponed  by  them  who  suffered  death 
therefor ;  who  declared  at  all  times  the  Queen  our  Sover- 
eign to  be  innocent  thereof."  This  was  the  declaration  of 
seven  earls,  twelve  lords,  and  sixteen  prelates. 

1  Keith,  vol.  ii.  p.  515. 


CHAPTER  XV. 


MURRAY  AND  BOTHWELL. 

"  To  draw  co  elusions  is  the  business  of  the  reader;  it  has  been  mine  to 
search  for  the  facts."  —  Froude's  History  of  England,  vol.  iv.  p.  485. 

Early  in  March,  1567,  Elizabeth  sent  an  ambassador 
(Killigrew)  down  to  Scotland  to  carry  out  certain  instruc- 
tions and  "  to  inquire  into  the  truth  "  concerning  Darnley's 
murder ;  and  we  ask  the  reader's  special  attention  to  the 
account  given  by  Mr.  Froude  of  Killigrew's  report  of  his 
mission.  It  is  one  of  the  most  remarkable  of  his  per- 
versions. A  bolder  piece  of  invention,  a  more  reckless 
tampering  with  a  historical  document,  is  rarely  met  with. 
On  the  very  day  of  his  arrival  at  Edinburgh,  Killigrew  was 
invited  to  dinner  by  Murray,  and  the  distinguished  guests 
bidden  to  meet  him  were  Huntly,  Argyll,  Bothwell,  and 
Maitland,  —  all  of  them  among  the  murderers  of  Darnley, 
He  was  thus  in  a  fair  way  "  to  inquire  into  the  truth." 

Killigrew  himself  states  the  facts  of  the  invitation  and 
the  dinner,  with  the  names  of  the  lords  he  there  met,  in 
a  letter  to  Cecil  of  March  8.  Now,  to  Mr.  Froude,  these 
statements  of  Killigrew  must  be  very  unpleasant. 

What  ?  The  "  stainless  "  Murray,  with  full  knowledge 
that  Bothwell  was  Darnley's  murderer,  and  that  Huntly, 
Argyll,  and  Maitland  were  in  the  conspiracy,  selecting 
these  men  as  the  choice  and  flower  of  the  Scotch  no- 
bility, to  honor  by  their  presence  the  ambassador  of  the 
Queen  of  England,  "  sent  down  to  Scotland  to  inquire  into 
the  truth  "  of  the  murder?    The  "  pious  "  Murray  extend- 


Murray's  dinner  party. 


173 


ing  the  right  hand  of  fellowship  to  assassins?^  It  must 
not  be.  The  scandal  must  be  suppressed.  Killigrew  was 
rash  to  write  such  a  letter.  And  our  historian  has  the  au- 
dacity to  tell  his  readers  (ix.  24)  —  referring  to  this  very 
letter  of  Killigrew  as  his  authority  —  ''•He  ivas  entertained 
at  dinner  by  the  clique  who  had  attended  her  (Mary)  to  Seton." 
A  few  pages  earlier,  Mary  Stuart  is  described  "on  the 
morning  of  the  16th,"  going  to  Seton  "attended  by  Both- 
well,  Iluntly,  Argyll,  Maitlaud,  Lords  Fleming,  Livfhgston, 
and  a  hundred  other  gentlemen  ; "  ^  so  that  the  reader  must 
find  out  for  himself  who  composed  the  clique.  The 
clique  "  entertained  Killigrew !  Not  a  whisper  of  Mur- 
ray. The  dinner  passes  off,  but  Murray  who  gave  it  and 
presided  at  it  is  not  visible  in  our  historian's  pages.  Mr. 
Froude  goes  on  with  his  travestie  of  Killigrew's  letter,  and 
hereupon  follows  a  wonderful  version  of  Killigrew's  audi- 
ence with  the  Queen,  and  at  the  end  of  the  next  page,  with 
a  decided  air  of  "  no  connection  with  the  establishment 
over  the  way,"  the  historian  informs  us  —  casually,  as  it 
were  —  "  One  other  person  of  note  he  saw,  and  that  was  the 
Earl  of  Murray.'"  The  earl  could  not  possibly  leave  his 
wife,  in  compliance  with  Mary  Stuart's  repeated  entreaties 
to  come  to  Edinburgh,  but  we  find  that  he  hastens  thither 
instantly  when  advised  of  Killigrew's  coming.  Murray's 
master,  Cecil,  in  a  letter  written  just  before  Killigrew's  ar- 
rival, throws  an  interesting  light  on  these  movements.  He 
writes  to  the  English  Ambassador  at  Paris  :  "  Morton,  Mur- 
ray, and  others  mean  to  be  at  P^dinburgh  very  shortly,  as 
they  pretend  to  search  out  the  malefactor."  ^     We  give  Sir 

1  This  on  Mr.  Froude's  theory  that  Murray  himself  was  not  one  of  the 
principals  in  the  murder.  At  the  very  least  they  had  his  assurance  "  that 
he  would  look  through  his  fingers  and  behold  their  doings,  saying  nothing 
to  the  same." 

2  Mr.  Froude  is  here  flatly  contradicted  by  authority  he  cannot  question: 
"  Upon  the  sixteentli  day  of  the  said  month  of  February,  our  Sovereign 
Lady  past  from  Holyrood  House  to  Seton,  and  left  the  Edrls  of  Huntley  and 
Bothivell  in  the  Palace  of  Ilolyrood.^^  —  Diurnal  of  Occurrents. 

8  Original  in  English  Record  Office,  Cabala,  126. 


174 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


Henry  Killigrew's  letter  of  March  8,  and  by  its  side  Mr. 
Fronde's  account  of  the  contents  of  the  letter.  The  pas- 
sages in  Mr.  Fronde's  version  which  he  says  Killigrew 
wrote,  but  which  cannot  he  found  in  Killigrew's  letter,  are 
given  in  italics  :  — 


Mr.  Froude's  Account  of 
THE  Contexts  of  Sir  H. 
Killigrew's  Letter  to 
Cecil  of  March  8,  1567. 
(ix.  24,  25.) 
Killigrew  reached  Edin- 
burgh on  the  8  th  of  March,  one 
day  behind  her.  He  was  enter- 
tained at  a  dinner  hy  the  clique 
who  had  attended  her  to  Seton, 
and  in  the  afternoon  was  ad- 
mitted to  a  brief  audience.  The 
windows  were  half-closed,  the 
rooms  were  darkened,  and  in 
the  profound  gloom  the  English 
Ambassador  was  unable  to  see 
the  Queen's  face,  but  by  her 
words  she  seemed  '  very  dole- 
fid.'  She  expressed  herself 
warmly  grateful  for  Elizabeth's 
kindness,  but  said  little  of  the  mur- 
der, and  turned  the  conversation 
chiefly  on  politics.  She  spoke  of 
Ireland,  and  undertook  to  prevent 
her  subjects  from  giving  trouble 
there ;  she  repeated  her  icilling- 
ness  to  ratify  the  treaty  of  Leith, 
and  professed  herself  generally 
anxious  to  meet  Elizabeth's  wishes. 

"  With  these  general  expres- 
sions, she  perhaps  hoped  that  Kil- 
ligrew would  have  been  contented, 
but  on  one  point  his  orders  icere 
positive.    He  represented  to  her 


Sir  H.  Killigrew's  Letter 
to  Cecil,  March  8,  1567. 
(In  Chalmers,  i.  324,  London 
ed. ;  American  edition,  Phil- 
adelphia, 1822,  p.  154.) 
Sir  :  Although  I  trust,  to  be 
shortly  with  you,  yet,  have  I 
thought  good  to  write  some- 
what, in  the  mean  time.    I  had 
no  audience  before  this  day  (8th 
March,  1566-7),  which  was  after 
I  had  dined,  with  my  Lord  of 
Murray,  who  was  accompanied 
with  my  Lord  Chancellor  (Hmit- 
ley),  the  Earl  of  Argyle,  my 
Lord  Bothwell,  and  the  Laird  of 
Lidington  (Secretary  Maitland). 

"  I  found  the  queen's  majesty, 
in  a  dark  chamber,  so  as  I  could 
not  see  her  face;  but  by  her 
words  she  seemed  very  dolefid ; 
and  did  accept  my  sovereign's 
letters,  and  message,  in  very 
thankful  manner;  as  I  trust, 
will  appear,  by  her  answer, 
which  I  hope  to  receive,  within 
these  two  days ;  and  I  think 
will  tend  to  satisfy  the  queen's 
majesty,  as  much  as  this  present 
can  permit,  not  only  for  the 
matters  of  Ireland,  but  also  the 
treaty  of  Leith. 

"  Touching  news,  I  can  write 
no  more,  than  is  written  by 


KILLIGREW'S  LETTER. 


175 


the  unanimity  with  ichich  Both-  others.    I  find  great  suspicions, 

well  had  been  fastened  upon  as  and  no  proof,  nor  appearance  of 

one  of  the  murderers  of  the  King ;  apprehension,  yet,  aUhough  I 

and  before  he  took  his  leave  he  am  made  believe,  I  shall  ere  I 

succeeded  in  extorting  a  promise  depart  hence,  receive  some  in- 

from  her  that  the  earl  should  he  formation. 

put  upon  his  trial.    His  staj  in  "  My  Lord  of  Lennox  hath 

Scotland  was  to  he  hrief  and  the  sent,  to  request  the  queen,  that 

little  which  he  trusted  himself  to  such  persons,  as  were  named,  in 

write  was  extremely  guarded,  the  bill   [placard]  should  be 

The  people,  he  rapidly  found,  taken.     Answer  is  made  him, 

were  in  no  humor  to  entertain  that  if  he,  or  any,  will  stand  to 

questions  of  church  policy.    The  the  accusation  of  any  of  them, 

mind  of  every  one  was  riveted  on  it  shall  be  done ;  but,  not  by 

the  one  all-ahsorhing  subject.  As  virtue  of  the  bill,  or  his  request, 

to  the  perpetrators,  he  said  there  I  look  to  hear  what  will  come 

were  '  great  suspicions,  but  no  from  him  to  that  point.  His 

proof,'  and  so  far  '  no  one  had  lordship  is  among  his  friends, 

been  apprehended.^   '  He  saw  no  beside  Glasgow,  where  he  think- 

present  appearance  of  trouble,  eth  himself  safe  enough,  as  a 

but  a  general  misliking  among  man  of  his  told  me. 

the  commons  and  some  others  "  I  see  no  troubles  at  present, 

which  abhorred  the  detesta-  nor  appearance  thereof ;  but  a 

ble  murder  of  their  king  as  a  general  misliking,  among  the 

shame  to  the  whole  nation  —  commons,   and    some  others, 

the  preachers  praying  openly  which  the  detestable  murder  of 

that  God  would  please  both  to  their  king,  a  shame,  as  they 

reveal  and  revenge  —  exhort-  suppose,  to  the  whole  nation, 

ing  all  men  to  prayer  and  re-  "  The  preachers  say,  and 

pentance.'  "  pray,  openly  to  God,  that  it  will 

please  him,  both  to  reveal,  and 
revenge  it;  exhorting  all  men 
to  prayer  and  repentance. 
"  Your  most  bounden  to  obey, 
"  H.  Kyllygrew." 

Mr.  Froude's  remark  (ix.  26)  that  "  We  are  stepping 
into  a  region  where  the  very  atmosphere  is  saturated  with 
falsehood,"  is  out  of  place,  and  comes  too  late  by  several 
volumes. 


176 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


Our  historian  is  shocked  (ix.  9)  at  Mary's  neglect  of 
"  forty  days'  sechision,  the  usual  period  prescribed  for  royal 
mourning." 

Prescribed  where  ?  In  France,  for  the  widow  of  a  reign- 
ing king.  Not  in  Scotland,  even  for  a  king,  much  less  a 
king  consort.  "  You  mocked  and  jested  among  your- 
selves," said  honest  Adam  Blackwood  to  the  Froudes  of 
his  day,  "  at  the  keeping  of  her  closet,  at  her  candle,  at  her 
black  mourning  attire ;  now  you  blame  her  that  she  took 
not  long  enough  in  performing  those  duties  which  you  hold 
in  conscience  to  be  superstitious."  Mary  fulfilled  these  du- 
ties shut  up  at  Edinburgh  Castle,  in  a  close  room  hung  with 
black  and  lighted  by  tapers,  as  long  as  it  was  allowed  by 
her  physicians.  On  their  representations,  the  Privy  Coun- 
cil urged  her  "  to  repair  to  some  good,  open,  and  whole- 
some air,"  and  she  accordingly  went  to  Seton  Castle,  accom- 
panied by  a  numerous  retinue,  in  which,  as  a  matter  of 
course,  Mr.  Froude  gives  Bothwell  a  prominent  position. 
But  Bothwell,  as  we  have  seen,  did  not  go  to  Seton  at  all. 
Buchanan  says  "  she  went  daily  into  the  fields  among  ruf- 
fians," and  Mr.  Froude,  whose  inspiration  is  Buchanan, 
having  long  in  advan'ce  told  the  old  exploded  "  butts " 
story,  says,  "  the  days  were  spent  in  hunting  and  shooting," 
and  the  Queen  "  was  amusing  herself  with  her  cavaliers  at 
Seton."  He  quotes  Drury's  letter  to  Cecil  of  March  29, 
but  is  unable  to  see  in  it  this  passage  concerning  the 
Queen :  — 

"  She  hath  been  for  the  most  part  either  melanclioly  or  sickly 
ever  since,  especially  this  week;  upon  Tuesday  and  Wednesday 

often  swooned  The  Queen  breaketh  very  much.  Upon 

Sunday  last  divers  were  witness,  for  there  was  mass  of  Requiem 

and  Dirge  for  the  King's  soul  The  Queen  went  on  Friday 

night,  with  two  gentlewomen  with  her,  into  the  chapel  about 
eleven,  and  tarried  there  till  near  unto  three  of  the  clock." 

It  was  at  this  time  that  Mary  was  more  anxious  than 
ever  to  return  to  the  country  where  she  had  spent  her 


THE  STAINLESS. 


177 


happy  youth.  So  fiir  from  desiring  to  remain  in  Scotland 
with  Bothwell,  as  her  enemies  say,  she  made  the  most 
strenuous  exertions  to  arrange  for  her  retirement  to  France. 
And  they  were  the  more  strenuous  because  of  their  secrecy. 
We  know  it  only  from  an  independent  source.  The  Span- 
ish Ambassador  at  Paris  advises  the  King  of  Spain 
(March  15,  1567)  :  "The  Queen  of  Scotland  is  so  much 
alarmed  that  I  understand  she  is  anxious  to  come  to  this 
kingdom,  to  live  in  a  town  assigned  to  her  for  her  dower ; 
but  here  they  are  opposed  to  her  coming,  and  do  their  ut- 
most to  induce  her  to  remain  where  she  is."  "  But  here 
they  are  opposed  to  her  coming^''  shows  us  plainly  that  there 
now  is,  in  reality,  a  "  court  of  Catherine  de  Medicis." 

Will  Mr.  Froude,  or  some  one  for  him,  explain  how  it  is 
that  Murray,  the  model  Christian  man,  the  "  noble  gentle- 
man of  stainless  honor,"  could  stand  by  and  look  quietly 
on  at  the  preparations  for  Darnley's  murder  progressing  be- 
fore his  very  eyes  ?  He  was  the  first  officer  next  the  crown 
and  the  most  influential  man  in  the  kingdom.  But  he 
lifted  not  a  finger,  spoke  not  a  word.^  He  could  have 
warned  Mary,  he  could  have  warned  Darnley.  But  when 
Darnley  was  warned  by  Robert  Douglass,  and  a  fierce  quar- 
rel ensued,  Murray,  sent  for  and  appealed  to  by  the  Queen, 
was  still  mute.  There  is  no  circumstance  going  more  forci- 
bly to  show  Mary's  utter  unconsciousness  of  the  plot  than 
her  conduct  in  this  matter.  She  instantly  calls  in  Murray. 
And  when  the  crime  was  consummated,  knowing  that  the 
Queen  herself  was  the  prize  coveted  by  Bothwell  and 
awarded  him  by  the  nobles,  as  his  share  of  the  plunder, 
could  this  brother  find  in  his  heart  no  word  of  kind  warn- 
ing if  he  believed  his  sister  innocent,  or  of  stern  rebuke 
if  he  thought  her  guilty  ?  In  spite  of  Mary's  earnest  en- 
treaties, tears,  and  prayers,  he  left  Scotland  (April  9)  just 

1  "Ilneveult  n'ayder  ne  nuyre;  niais  c'est  tout  iing."  "  The  Earl  of 
Murray  will  neither  help  nor  hinder  us;  but  it  is  all  one."  —  Fir&t  Deposi- 
tion of  Paris. 

12 


178  MARY  quep:n  of  scots. 

before  the  trial  of  Bothwell.  Pretending  to  go  to  France, 
he  went  straight  to  England.  Immediately  on  his  arrival  at 
Berwick,  Drury's  correspondence  with  Cecil  becomes  more 
than  ordinarily  malignant,  and  Mr.  Froude  himself  tells  us 
of  his  insinuations  to  De  Silva  against  the  Queen.  These 
were  his  outward  acts.  But  as  a  strange  commentary  upon 
them,  the  revelations  of  later  years  have  brought  us  his 
"  last  will  and  testament,"  privately  executed  by  him  before 
leaving  Scotland.  It  is  dated  April  3,  1567,  just  six  days 
before  his  departure,  and  appoints  the  Queen,  Mary  Stuart, 
to  the  charge  of  his  only  child,  and  that  child  a  daughter, 
as  "  overswoman  to  see  all  things  be  handled  and  ruled  for 
the  well-being  of  my  said  daughter." 

Do  men  usually  select  a  murderess  and  an  adulteress  to 
take  charge  of  an  only  daughter  when  they  are  dead  and 
gone  ? 

THE  marshal's  REPORT. 

One  of  our  author's  most  elaborately  finished  and  sensa- 
tional pictures  is  the  scene  (ix.  42-44)  where  he  describes 
Both  well's  departure  from  Holy  rood  to  be  tried  for  the 
murder  of  Darnley.  The  reader's  especial  attention  to  it  is 
requested.  As  the  authority  for  this  recital,  we  are  referred 
to  the  report  made  by  a  messenger  charged  with  the  de- 
livery of  a  missive  from  Queen  Elizabeth  to  Queen  Mary  ; 
and  we  are  assured  by  Mr.  Froude  that  "  this  officer  has 
preserved,  as  in  a  photograph,  the  singular  scene  of  lohich  he 
was  a  witness."  A  certain  importance  is  properly  attached 
to  the  official  missive  of  a  subordinate  to  a  superior  officer, 
to  whom  he  is  responsible  for  the  truth  of  his  statements, 
and,  under  these  circumstances,  the  report  made  by  Drury's 
messenger  naturally  carries  great  weight  with  it.  Un- 
fortunately, though,  our  historian  has  chosen  to  substitute 
a  sketch  of  his  own  for  what  he  calls  the  officer's  photo- 
graph. Passing  over  some  of  its  minor  misstatements,  we 
come  to  "  presently  the  earl  [Bothwell]  appeared,  walking 
with  Maitland."    The  beggarly  Scots  "  fell  back  as  Both- 


THE  marshal's  REPORT. 


179 


well  approached,  and  he  [the  oilicer,  Provost-marshal  of 
Berwick]  presented  his  letter."  And  now  we  are  made  to 
see  what  was  passing  in  Bothwell's  mind  :  "  The  earl  per- 
haps felt  that  too  absolute  a  defiance  might  be  unwise. 
He  took  it  [notice,  Bothwell  took  it]  and  went  back  into 
the  palace,  but  presently  returned,  and  said  [Bothwell  said] 
that  the  Queen  was  still  sleeping ;  it  would  be  given  to  her 
when  the  work  of  the  morning  was  over."  This  narrative 
forces  upon  the  reader  the  inference  that  Bothwell  has  at 
once  exclusive  charge  of  the  Queen's  affairs,  and  the  entree 
to  her  sleeping  apartments. 

We  have  long  ceased  to  be  astonished  at  any  historical 
outrage  from  the  pen  of  our  author,  and  we  are  reluctantly 
compelled  to  believe  that  there  is  no  perversion  too  shock- 
ing, no  misrepresentation  too  bold,  for  one  who  could  man- 
ipulate, as  does  Mr.  Froude,  the  passage  under  considera- 
tion. The  marshal,  in  his  official  report,  made  through 
Drury,  states  distinctly  that  Maitland  (not  Bothwell)  de- 
manded the  letter,  Maitland  (not  Bothwell)  took  the  letter, 
Maitland  (not  Bothwell)  returned,  and  Maitland  (not  Both- 
well)  gave  him  the  answer  he  reports,  but  which,  of  course, 
is  not  the  answer  stated  by  Mr.  Froude,  who  has  "  not  yet 
succeeded  in  grasping  the  nature  of  inverted  commas."  Of 
the  groom,  the  horse,  the  Queen  at  the  open  window,  the 
farewell  nod  to  Bothwell,  there  is  not  a  syllable  in  the 
marshal's  statement. 

Here  is  the  text  of  the  official  report,  beginning  at  the 
point  where  Maitland  and  Bothwell  made  their  appear- 
ance :  — 

"  At  the  which,  all  the  lords  and  gentlemen  mounted  on  horse- 
back, till  that  Lethington  (Maitland)  came  to  him  demanding 
him  the  letter,  which  he  delivered.  The  Earl  of  Bothwell  and 
he  returned  to  the  Queen,  and  stayed  there  within  half  an  hour, 
the  whole  troop  of  lords  and  gentlemen,  still  on  horseback  attend- 
ing for  his  coming.  Lethington  seemed  willing  to  have  passed 
by  the  provost  without  any  speech,  but  he  pressed  toward  him, 


180 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


and  asked  him  if  the  Queen's  majesty  had  perused  the  letter,  and 
what  service  it  would  please  her  majesty  to  command  him  back 
again.  He  answered  that  as  yet  the  Queen  was  sleeping,  and 
therefore  had  not  delivered  the  letter,  and  that  there  would  not 
be  any  meet  time  for  it  till  after  the  assize,  wherefore  he  willed 
him  to  attend.  So,  giving  place  to  the  throng  of  people  that 
passed,  which  was  great,  and,  by  the  estimation  of  men  of  good 
judgment,  above  four  thousand  gentlemen  besides  others,  the  Earl 
Bothwell  passed  with  a  merry  and  lusty  cheer,  attended  on  with 
all  the  soldiers,  being  two  hundred,  all  harkebusiers,  to  the 
Tolbooth."    (Chalmers,  vol.  iii.  p.  70.) 

Our  historian  changes  the  marshal's  "  four  thousand 
gentlemen"  into  "four  thousand  ruffians,"  thus  concealing 
the  fact  that  at  this  time  Bothwell's  cause  was  also  the 
cause  of  Murray,  Maitland,  and  of  the  great  body  of  the 
nobility  —  his  confederates  in  the  Darnley  murder,  and  who 
formed  the  court  and  jury  about  to  try  him  for  the  crime  of 
which  he  and  they  were  equally  guilty.^  It  is  almost  cer- 
tain that  the  Queen  never  received  the  missive  from  Eliza- 
beth, and  did  not  at  the  time,  if  ever,  know  of  the  arrival 
of  the  messenger  who  brought  it.^  She  never  would,  even 
as  a  matter  of  policy,  have  countenanced  the  incivility  to 
which  the  marshal  was  subjected.  Although  Mr.  Froude 
has  a  loop-hole  of  escape  in  adding  to  his  reference  note, 
Drury  to  Cecily  April''  the  words,  "  Border  MSS.  printed 
in  the  appendix  to  the  ninth  volume  of  Mr.  Tytler's  '  Hist,  of 
Scotland,'  "  he  has  nevertheless,  in  his  text,  fully  impressed 
the  reader  with  the  belief  that  he  is  perusing  the  recital 
of  Elizabeth's  messenger.  The  horse,  the  Queen  at  the 
window,  the  friendly  nod,  etc.,  are  found  in  a  fragment  with- 
out date  and  of  anonymous  authorship,  forwarded  by  Drury, 

1  "The  voluntary  escort  of  four  thousand  gentlemep  to  his  trial,"  says 
Aytoun, "  is  an  unequivocal  proof  of  the  strength  of  his  (Bothwell's)  position 
at  the  time." 

2  Mr.  Burton  has  the  fairness  to  state  that  "  On  the  day  of  the  trial  a 
messenger  arrived  with  a  letter  from  Queen  Elizabeth  to  Queen  Mary,  but 
in  the  confusion  and  excitement  of  the  event  of  the  day  it  is  not  known 
whether  she  received  it." 


bothwell's  trial. 


181 


whose  business  it  was  to  gather  and  send  to  Cecil  every 
rumor,  report,  and  scandal  concerning  the  Scottish  court. 
Tytler  gives  it  in  an  appendix  as  a  portion  of  "  disjointed 
pieces  of  news  sent  by  some  one  of  the  many  spies  from 
whom  Drury  received  information."    Here  it  is  :  — 

"  The  Queen  sent  a  token  and  message  to  Bodwell,  being  at 
assize."    "  Bodwell  rode  upon  the  courser  that  was  the  king's, 

when  he  rode  to  the  assyse  Ledington  and  others  told  the 

under-marshal  that  the  Queen  was  asleep,  when  he  himself  saw  her 
looking  out  of  a  window,  showed  him  by  one  of  La  Crok's  ser- 
vants, and  Ledington's  wife  with  her ;  and  Bodwell  after  he  was 
on  horseback  looked  up,  and  she  gave  him  a  friendly  nod  for  a 
farewell." 

What  the  marshal  really  saw  and  heard  he  officially  re- 
ported, and  we  must  decline  accepting  scrappy  gossip  and 
intangible  authority  to  qualify  it.  If  any  such  incidents 
had  occurred,  we  would  have  heard  of  them  from  numer- 
ous sources.  They  were  too  remarkable  to  have  been  over- 
looked, and  even  Buchanan  has  no  knowledge  of  them. 
The  story  of  the  "  courser  that  was  the  king's  "  resembles 
Calderwood's  stuff  as  to  giving  Darnley's  old  clothes  to 
Bothwell. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  state  that  the  history  of  the  cor- 
respondence between  the  Queen  and  Lennox  concerning 
the  trial  is  elaborately  misrepresented.  The  Queen  did 
promptly  all  that  could  have  been  expected,  and  the  tone 
of  her  letters  to  Lennox  was,  as  ever,  dignified,  and  with 
far  more  of  kindness  and  Consideration  than  he  had  any 
right  to  look  for  at  her  hands.  If  Darnley  had  had  the 
advantage  while  living  of  such  counsel  as  a  true  father 
and  an  honest  man  might  have  given  him,  there  would 
have  been  no  Kirk  o'  Field  explosion,  and  no  trial  of  Both- 
well. 

The  fact  that  both  Maitland  and  Morton  ^  rode  with  Both- 
well  to  the  Tolbooth  is  concealed.    "  Four  assessors  "  are 


1  "  Mortonio  causam  ejus  sustinente,"  says  Camden. 


182 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


mentioned.  But  "  assessors,"'  for  all  the  modern  reader 
knows,  may  mean  clerks,  whose  duty  it  is  to  tax  costs.  It 
is  not  explained  that  these  assessors  were  in  fact  judges. 
Mr.  Fronde's  fear  that  "  one  or  more  of  them  might  prove 
unmanageable  "  need  excite  no  alarm.  No  men  in  the 
kingdom  were  more  manageable.  They  were  all  of  them 
^Murray's  creatures,  —  Lord  Lindsay  (his  brother-in-law), 
Pitcairn,  Henry  Balnaves,  and  James  Makgill.  Lindsay 
was  one  of  the  assassins  of  Riccio,  and  was  also  in  the 
murder  conspiracy  against  Darnley.  He  is  the  same  Lind- 
say who  afterwards  treated  the  Queen  with  such  personal 
brutality  to  obtain  her  signature.  Balnaves  was  one  of  the 
assassins  of  Cardinal  Beaton.  Makgill,  "  a  subtle  chicaner 
and  inibroiler  of  the  laws,"  was  compromised  in  the  Ric- 
cio murder,  and  now  enrolled  on  the  English  pension  list 
with  his  master.  The  last  three  were  tools  of  Murray,  and 
accompanied  him  to  York  with  the  forged  casket-letters. 
Truly  the  danger  was  great  that  "  one  or  more  "  of  such 
villains  as  these  should  do  otherwise  than  acquit  a  brother 
assassin.  Caithness  was  not  for  an  instant  doubtful.  Mor- 
ton's excuse  for  not  being  present  at  the  trial  is  misrepre- 
sented. He  sent  no  such  message  as  "  he  would  Irave  been 
glad  to  please  the  Queen."  His  reason  for  not  being  pres- 
ent at  the  assize  was  that  the  enmity  notoriously  existing  be- 
tween him  and  Darnley  made  it  hazardous  for  him  to  take 
part  in  trial  of  one  accused  of  his  murder  ;  and  his  mes- 
sage was:  "Though  the  King  had  forgotten  his  part  in 
respect  of  nature  toward  him,  yet  for  that  he  was  his  kins- 
man he  would  rather  pay  for  the  forfeit."  Cunningham 
(Lennox's  agent)  stated  at  the  trial  that  he  [Lennox] 
was  denied  of  his  friends  —  that  is  to  say  refused  by  them. 
For  denied,  Mr.  Froude  substitutes  denuded,  which  looks  as 
though  he  had  been  forcibly  deprived  of  them,  and  has  a 
much  better  effect. 

The  historian  sneers  at  the  Parliament  (ix.  51),  "  or  such 
packed  assemblage  as  the  Queen  called  by  the  name,"  and 


THE  AINSLIE  BOND. 


183 


misrepresents  the  return  of  the  Himtly  estates,  which  was 
an  act  of  the  merest  naked  justice.  The  Parliament  was 
as  full  as  any  of  that  time.  According  to  our  historian,  it 
was  composed  of  five  prelates,  six  earls,  six  other  noble- 
men, and  a  few  commoners.  But  the  official  record  ^  con- 
tradicts him,  and  gives  nineteen  prelates  and  abbots,  ten 
earls,  one  of  whom  was  Morton,  sixteen  lords,  and  seven 
commoners  —  full  as  large  as  any  parliament  of  the  period. 
"  Price  of  the  divorce  !  "  The  Queen's  promise  to  Huntly 
had  been  made  twenty  months,  and  was  given  six  months 
before  Bothwell's  marriage  to  Jane  Gordon.  Not  four,  but 
twenty-four  acts  were  passed.  The  murderers  of  Darnley 
had  lost  no  time  in  having  it  assembled,  mainly  for  the 
purpose  of  confirming  the  crown  grants  which  the  Queen 
would  otherwise  be  at  liberty  to  revoke.  These  grants  in- 
cluded nearly  two  thirds  of  all  the  crown  lands.  Morton's 
titles  and  possessions  were  not  only  confirmed  to  him,  but 
the  earldom  of  Angus  with  its  large  estates  (Darnley's  by 
right)  was  given  to  Morton's  nephew,  a  boy  of  twelve. 
Large  grants  were  made  to  Maitland's  father.  Argyll  was 
held  to  have  had  enough  in  his  wholesale  plunder  of  the 
Lennox  estates,  for  which,  had  he  lived,  Darnley  would 
have  held  him  accountable.  And  finally,  the  largest  and 
most  elaborately  framed  Act  of  all  that  were  passed  was  one 
eight  columns  long  as  now  printed,  securing  to  Murray  his 
earldom  and  its  lands.  Murray,  thus  placed  on  record  by 
himself,  was,  through  his  friends,  quite  sufficiently  present 
in  Edinburgh  for  the  purposes  of  the  Act  of  Parliament, 
but  not  for  the  Ainslie  bond,  thinks  Mr.  Froude. 

1  In  Anderson,  vol.  i.  part  2,  pp.  113-114. 


CHAPTER  XYI. 


AINSLIE  BOND.  —  ABDUCTION.  MARRIAGE. 

"  II  est  toujours  dangereux  et  souv^ent  pu^ril  cle  vouloir  intrepr^ter  les 
sentiments  secrets  des  persounages  historiques."  —  Lanfrey,  Bistoire  de 
Napoleon  1. 

Mr.  Froude  preserves  all  the  apocryphal  and  suspi- 
ciously romantic  circumstances  surrounding  the  commonly 
received  version  of  the  so-called  Ainslie  Tavern  Supper, 
and  gives  us  the  "  wine  "  which  "  went  round  freely/'  Both- 
well's  hackbutters  "  who  surrounded  the  house,"  etc.  Late 
investigations  make  any  tavern  supper  in  connection  with 
the  bond  more  than  doubtful.  Parliament  had,  that  very 
day,  ratified  to  Murray,  Morton,  and  their  confederates, 
their  vast  grants  of  crown  lands.  This  was  their  claimed 
remuneration  for  the  Darnley  murder.  Both  well  was  now 
to  receive  his,  which  was  the  approval  by  the  nobles  of  his 
marriage  with  the  Queen.  This  approval,  as  well  as  their 
pledge  to  uphold  him  as  innocent  of  the  murder  of  Darn- 
ley,  they  gave  him  in  the  most  solemn  manner.  The  state- 
ments concerning  the  signing  of  this  so-called  Ainslie  bond 
made  by  Bothwell,  by  Sir  James  Melville,  and  by  Murray's 
"  Articles,"  strip  the  affair  of  all  such  features  as  supper, 
wine,  and  hackbutters,  and  leave  it  a  plain  business  trans- 
action. Mr.  Froude  gives  no  idea  (ix.  52)  of  the  true 
import  and  strength  of  this  important  document.  The 
"  situation  "  will  be  made  clear  to  the  reader  by  its  atten- 
tive perusal.^ 

It  is  claimed  that  neither  Murray  nor  Morton  signed 
this  document.    As  to  Murray  tlie  case  stands  thus.  In 
1  See  Appendix  No.  7. 


AINSLIE  BOND. 


185 


December,  1568,  John  Read,  a  clerk  of  Buchanan,  was 
sent  to  Cecil  with  a  copy  of  the  Ainslie  bond.  The  signa- 
tures were  supplied  verbally  by  Read  to  Cecil,  as  appears 
by  an  entry  upon  the  bond  in  Cecil's  writing.^  Now  Read 
was  a  creature  of  Buchanan,  who  was  a  creature  of  Mur- 
ray, who  was  a  creature  of  Cecil ;  and  Murray  was  then 
present  in  London  prosecuting  his  "  Articles  "  against  his 
sister,  and  this  "  bond,"  with  Murray's  name  to  it,  was  used 
at  the  conference  by  Cecil  with  Murray's  knowledge.  To 
this  is  opposed  the  fact  that  at  the  date  of  the  bond  Mur- 
ray was  not  in  Edinburgh.  But  he  may  have  signed  it  be- 
fore his  departure.  He  was  passe  maitre  in  all  the  art  and 
mystery  of  the  alihi,  and  always  absent  at  the  perpetration 
of  all  the  great  crimes  of  the  day.  The  alacrity  of  all  the 
lords  to  sign  the  bond  could  only  be  accounted  for  by  Mur- 
ray's approval  of  it.  As  to  Morton,  Cecil  says  he  signed, 
and  the  Scotch  copy  in  Paris  also  has  his  signature.  Mr. 
Froude  says  (ix.  53)  that  he  "  can  be  proved  distinctly 
not  to  have  signed."  Mr.  Fronde's  word  is,  of  course,  very 
good,  but  we  prefer  to  accept  Morton's  own  confession  just 
before  death  that  he  did  sign  it. 

The  "  supper  story "  is  repeated  by  Mr.  Burton,  who, 
usually  positive  even  unto  dogmatism,  is  here  straight- 
way overcome  by  a  total  inability  to  understand  this  docu- 
ment. He  leaves  it  in  a  mist,  saying :  "  This  is  an  affair 
which  not  only  lacks  sufficient  explanation,  but  scarcely 
affords  material  for  a  plausible  theory.  Simple  coercion 
will  hardly  account  for  it."  There  is  no  occasion  for  plausible 
theories.  Did  or  did  not  the  earls,  bishops,  and  lords,  whose 
names  are  appended,  sign  the  bond  in  question  ?    Not  even 

1  "  The  names  of  such  of  the  nobility  as  subscribed  the  bond,  so  far  as 
John  Read  might  remember,  of  whom  I  had  this  copy,  being  in  his  own 
hand,  being  commonly  called  in  Scotland  Aynslie's  supper.  Earles  of  Mur- 
ray', Argyll,  Huntley,  Cassilis,  Morton,  Sutherland,  Rothes,  Glencairn,  and 
Caithness;  Lords  Boyd,  Seton,  Sinclair,  Sample,  Oliphant,  Ogiivy,  Rosse, 
Hacat,  Carlyle,  Herries,  Ilume,  and  Innermeith.  Eglinton  subscribed  not, 
but  slipped  away." 


186 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


Mr.  Fronde  dare  deny  it,  except  to  the  extent  of  a  little 
special  pleading  in  favor  of  one  or  two  of  his  favorites. 
This  bond  plainly  tells  us  who  were  BothwelFs  accomplices 
in  the  Darnley  murder,  and  who  are  accountable  for  his 
forcible  marriage  with  the  Queen.-^ 

We  have  not  room  for  extended  comment  on  the  "  for- 
eign guard  "  story,  (ix.  11.)  It  is  a  piece  of  elaborate  mis- 
representation. 

At  Seton  Mary  was  occupied  with  the  choice  of  a  pro- 
tector and  safe  residence  for  her  infant  son.  She  chose 
the  Earl  of  Mar  (John  Erskine),  who  had  been  her 
preceptor  in  her  childhood.  His  wife  had  already  been 
appointed  governess  to  the  Prince,  and  their  residence, 
Stirling  Castle,  offered  the  inducements  of  salubrity  and 
strength.  The  child  was  sent  to  Stirlino:  on  the  19th 
March,  in  charge  of  the  Earls  of  Argyll  and  Huntly.  Of 
these  facts  no  mention  is  made  in  the  "  History,"  and  the 
reader  is  left  under  the  impression  that  the  child  was  taken 
from  its  mother,  and  that  its  life  "  was  in  as  great  danger 
as  the  Queen's  honor."  To  make  this  statement  good,  Mr. 
Fronde  thus  exposes  Mary  Stuart,  and  thinks  that  the  fol- 
lowing story  represents  the  belief  of  the  day.  As  a  matter 
of  course,  the  incident  is  taken  out  of  the  famous  "  Border 
Correspondence,"  —  and  a  very  pretty  story  it  is.  Drury 
writes  to  Cecil  May  20  :  — 

"  At  the  Queen's  last  being  at  Stirling,  the  Prince  being 
brought  unto  her,  she  offered  to  kiss  him,  but  the  Prince  would 
not,  but  put  her  face  away  with  his  hand,  and  did  to  his  strength 
scratch  her.  She  took  an  apple  out  of  her  pocket  and  offered  it, 
but  it  would  not  be  received  by  him,  but  the  nurse  took  it,  and  to 
a  greyhound  bitch  having  whelps,  the  apple  was  thrown.  She  ate 
it,  and  she  and  the  whelps  died  presently ;  a  sugar-loaf  also  for 
the  Prince  was  brought  thither  at  the  same  time,  and  left  there 
for  the  Prince,  but  the  Earl  of  Mar  keeps  the  same.  It  is  judged 
to  be  very  evil  compounded." 

1  The  Ainslie  supper  question  is  exhaustively  treated  by  Professor  Ay- 
toun  in  his  Bothwdl,  p.  231. 


"  HER  ONLY  BAIRN." 


187 


Although  no  possible  motive  can  bo  assigned  for  it,  it  is 
very  clear  to  Mr.  Fronde  that  Mary  Stuart  made  the  jour- 
ney to  Stirling  in  order  to  poison  her  own  infant.  For 
those  who  "  believe  with  their  wills,"  no  invention  can  be 
too  gross  if  it  but  calumniate  Mary  Stuart.  Poor  Marie 
Antoinette  in  after  years,  as  we  know,  was  accused  of  some- 
thins:  worse  than  taking  the  life  of  her  child.  The  answer 
of  these  two  Queens,  great  in  their  sufferings  and  grand  in 
their  resignation,  was,  in  each  case,  an  eloquent  burst  of 
nature  and  queenly  dignity.  "  The  natural  love,"  said  Mary 
Stuart,  "  which  the  mother  bears  to  her  only  bairn  is  suffi- 
cient to  confound  them,  and  needs  no  other  answer."  She 
afterward  added,  that  all  the  world  knew  that  the  very  men 
who  now  charged  her  with  this  atrocious  crime  had  wronged 
her  son,  even  before  his  birth ;  for  they  would  have  slain 
him  in  her  womb,  although  they  now  pretended  in  his  name 
to  exercise  their  usurped  authority." 

It  is  claimed  by  Mary  Stuart's  enemies  that  Bothwell's 
forcible  abduction  of  the  Queen  was  collusive.  Three  of 
the  forged  casket-letters  are  produced  to  prove  it.  These 
letters  are  the  clumsiest  of  the  forgeries,  and  are  contra- 
dicted by  the  portion  of  the  Paris  confession  which  was 
manufactured  to  confirm  them.  Paris  is  made  to  deliver 
a  letter  to  Bothwell  the  day  before  it  is  written.  Accord- 
ing to  Paris,  Mary  sent  a  letter  to  Bothwell  from  Linlith- 
gow by  the  Laird  of  Ormiston.  The  best  testimony  on  that 
point  would  have  been  that  of  Ormiston  himself;  but  al- 
though for  months  a  prisoner  he  was  never  questioned  on 
the  subject.  Again,  Mary  is  made  to  advise  Bothwell  what 
he  should  say  to  Lethington,  when  it  is  well  known  that 
Lethington  was  then  with  her  as  one  of  her  small  escort. 
Again,  one  of  the  letters  to  Bothwell  refers  to  Huntly  as 
his  "  brother-in-law  that  was,''  precisely  the  state  of  facts 
when  the  forger  did  his  work  —  not  stopping  to  remember 
that  at  the  date  given  to  the  letter  Bothwell  was  not  yet 
divorced  from  his  wife  (Iluntly's  sister).  A  few  days  be- 
fore the  abduction,  a  letter  goes  from  Drury  to  Cecil :  — 


188 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


"  Tlie  Earl  Botliwell  hath  gathered  many  of  his  friends,  very 
well  provided,  some  say  to  ride  into  Liddesdale ;  but  there  is  feared 
some  other  purpose,  which  he  intendeth,  much  different  from  that 
of  the  Avhich  I  believe  I  shortly  shall  be  able  to  advertise  more 
certainly.  He  hath  furnished  Dunbar  Castle  with  all  necessary 
provisions  as  well  of  victuals  as  other  things  forcible." 

The  "  things  forcible  "  were  cannon  and  munitions  of 
war  to  provide  for  defense  if  necessary.  Thus  it  appears 
that  Drury  down  on  the  Border  knew  of  these  preparations 
of  Bothwell  to  take  the  Queen  to  Dunbar,  —  preparations 
that  must  have  required  time.  And  yet,  according  to  the 
forged  letters,  Mary  leaves  Edinburgh  where  Bothwell 
was,  in  total  ignorance  of  his  plans,  and  is  made  to  write  to 
him  the  same  day  to  know  what  she  should  do  ?  Then,  to 
crown  all,  it  was  simply  an  impossibility  for  a  messenger  to 
return  with  an  answer  before  the  encounter  took  place. 
Not  to  speak  of  the  minor  discomforts  of  a  long  ride  to 
Stirling  and  illness  at  Linlithgow,  by  way  of  preparation 
for  the  twenty  miles'  ride  to  Dunbar,  there  is  no  conceivable 
reason  for  a  collusive  encounter,  if  Mary  was  so  madly  in 
love  with  Bothwell  as  her  enemies  represent  her.  No  one 
regretted  Darnley,  and  there  was  no  obstacle  whatever  to 
what  is  represented  as  her  mad  desire.  All  this  must  be 
admitted  as  true,  and  her  enemies  have  nothing  wherewith 
to  meet  it  but  the  suggestion  that  a  sense  of  shame  pre- 
vented her,  when  they  have  all  along  sought  to  prove  "her 
dead  to  shame.  "  They  (the  Queen  and  Bothwell)  seemed 
to  fear  nothing  more  than  lest  their  wickedness  should  be 
unknown,"  says  Buchanan  ;  while  Mr.  Froude  describes  her 
as  "  duped  by  her  own  passions,  which  had  dragged  her 
down  to  the  level  of  a  brute."  (ix.  44.)  Bothwell  was  le- 
gally acquitted ;  he  had  the  support  of  men  of  the  highest 
station  and  greatest  influence,  and  was  recommended  by 
the  chief  nobility  of  the  realm  as  a  fit  person  to  marry  the 
Queen,  with  their  pledge  to  aid  him  thereto.  She  was  free, 
and  had  positively  nothing  to  do  but  accept  the  advice  and 


THE  ABDUCTION. 


189 


counsel  of  the  bishops,  earls,  and  lords.  Instead  of  this 
she  goes  through  this  absurd  farce  of  being  waylaid  and 
carried  off.  A  distinguished  Scotch  author  (Aytoun)  may 
well  say :  "  It  is  matter  of  surprise  that  a  story  so  palpa- 
bly absurd  should  ever  have  received  credence." 

Mr.  Froude's  version  of  the  abduction  may  be  dismissed 
with  slight  comment.  He  represents  Mary  with  a  guard 
of  three  hundred  men.  She  had  no  guard  whatever  but 
the  escort  of  twelve  persons,  among  whom  were  Huntly, 
Lethington,  and  Melville.  He  pictures  Bothwell  with  a 
dozen  of  his  followers  instead  of  a  thousand  horsemen  in 
mail.^  He  makes  Mary  say  —  "with  singular  composure  " 
—  of  course,  "  she  would  have  no  bloodshed ;  her  people 
were  outnumbered,  and  rather  than  any  of  them  should 
lose  their  lives,  she  would  go  wherever  the  Earl  of  Both- 
well  wished." 

Is  it  not  a  pretty  speech  ? 

Yet  hear  how  ruthlessly  Mr.  Hosack  ruins  it :  "  But  this 
is  the  speech,  not  of  the  Queen  of  Scots,  but  of  Mr.  Froude, 
who  has  put  it  into  her  mouth  for  the  obvious  purpose  of 
leading  his  readers  to  conclude  that  she  was  an  accomplice 
in  the  designs  of  Bothwell."  (Page  302.) 

Sir  James  Melville's  account  is  :  — 

"  The  Earl  of  Bothwell  encountered  her  with  a  great  com- 
pany, and  took  her  horse  by  the  bridle,  his  men  took  the  Earl  of 
Huntley,  Secretary  Maitland,  and  me,  and  carried  us  captives  to 
Dunbar.  There  the  Earl  of  B.  boasted  he  would  marry  the 
Queen,  who  would  or  wlio  would  not ;  yea,  lohetJier  she  would  herself 
or  not." 

The  Queen's  ladies  were  not  allowed  to  remain  with  her ; 
her  attendants  were  dismissed,  and  she  was  placed  in  charge 
of  Bothwell's  sister.  Although  our  readers  are  familiar 
with  the  horrible  story,  the  best  account  of  it  is,  after  all, 
Mary's  own  simple  and  modest  narrative  of  the  abominable 

1  Driiry  says  1,000.  Mignet  the  same;  Burton  says,  "  Bothwell  took  with 
him  800  spearsmen." 


190 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


outrage.  It  is  found  in  Keith,  vol.  ii.  p.  599.  After  referring 
to  the  great  services  and  unshaken  loyalty  of  Bothwell,  she 
says  that,  previous  to  her  visit  to  Stirling,  he  had  made  cer- 
tain advances,  "  to  which  her  answer  was  in  no  dej^ree 
correspondent  to  his  desire ; "  but  that,  having  previously 
obtained  the  consent  of  the  nobility  to  the  marriage,  he  did 
not  hesitate  to  carry  her  off  to  the  Castle  of  Dunbar ;  that 
when  she  reproached  him  for  his  audacity,  he  implored  her 
to  attribute  his  conduct  to  the  ardor  of  his  affection,  and 
to  condescend  to  accept  him  as  her  husband,  in  accordance 
with  the  wishes  of  his  brother  nobles  ;  that  he  then,  to  her 
amazement,  laid  before  her  the  bond  of  the  nobility,  de- 
claring that  it  was  essential  to  the  peace  and  welfare  of  the 
kingdom  that  she  should  choose  another  husband,  and  that, 
of  all  her  subjects,  Bothwell  was  best  deserving  of  that 
honor ;  that  she  still,  notwithstanding,  refused  to  listen  to 
his  proposals,  believing  that,  as  on  her  former  visit  to  Dun- 
bar, an  army  of  loyal  subjects  would  speedily  appear  for 
her  deliverance  ;  but  that,  as  day  after  day  passed  without 
a  sword  being  drawn  in  her  defense,  she  was  forced  to  con- 
clude that  the  bond  was  genuine,  and  that  her  chief  no- 
bility were  all  in  league  with  Bothwell ;  and  finally,  that, 
finding  her  a  helpless  captive,  he  assumed  a  bolder  tone, 
and  "  so  ceased  he  never  till,  by  persuasion  and  importu- 
nate suit,  acco7npanied  not  the  less  by  force^  he  has  finally 
driven  us  to  end  the  work  begun." 

Mr.  Burton  speaks  of  Melville  as  holding  his  tongue 
about  what  took  place  at  Dunbar,  and  adds,  "  On  the  ques- 
tion whether  or  not  the  Queen  was  treated  with  violence  in 
Dunbar  Castle,  there  is  no  end  of  speculation,  but  there  is 
very  little  means  of  distinct  knowledge."  This  is  amazing, 
in  presence  of  the  fact  that  Melville,  so  far  from  holding 
his  tongue,  spoke  out  in  the  plainest  and  crudest  terms  pos- 
sible. Mr.  Burton  elsewhere  accepts  Melville's  authority, 
and  we  therefore  do  not  wonder  that  he  is  disturbed  at  such 
a  passage  as  this :  "  And  then  the  Queen  could  not  but 


ABDUCTION  AND  MARRIAGE. 


191 


marry  him  (Both well),  seeing  he  had  ravished  her  and 
lain  with  her  against  her  will."  ^  Bothwell  in  his  confession 
states  that  he  used  a  potion.  Morton's  proclamation  ac- 
cused him  of  violence  to  the  Queen,  and  of  using  "  other 
more  unleisum  means,"  and  finally  the  whole  history  of 
the  foul  outrage  is  spread  out  in  a  solemn  Act  of  the  Scotch 
Parliament,  whose  members  were  Mary's  enemies  acting 
under  the  Regent  Murray  when  she  was  a  dethroned  pris- 
oner in  England.  .  The  Act  is  important  in  its  bearing  on 
the  Dunbar  outrage  and  on  the  casket-letters.  Mr.  Caird 
states  that  the  violence  used  by  Bothwell  to  the  Queen  is 
characterized  in  the  document  as  "  Vis  aut  raetus  qui  cadit 
in  constantem  virum,"  —  such  force  and  fear  as  would 
shake  a  man  of  firmness  and  resolution.  It  is  the  law 
phrase  for  such  violence  as  would  annul  a  deed."  (Page 
160.) 

THE  MARRIAGE. 

"  She  was  reduced  to  this  horrid  alternative  —  either  to  remain  in  a  friend- 
less and  most  hazardous  celibacy  or  to  yield  her  hand  to  Bothwell." —  Lord 
Hailes. 

David  Dalrymple  (Lord  Hailes)  was  no  partisan  of  the 
Queen  of  Scots,  and  he  here  truly  describes  her  position  at 
Dunbar,  victim  as  she  was  of  the  brutality  of  Bothwell, 
the  treachery  of  her  nobles,  and  the  supineness  of  those 
who  should  have  flown  to  her  rescue.2  The  honest  min- 
ister,  John  Craig,  who,  three  weeks  after  the  abduction, 
proclaimed  the  bans  of  marriage  batween  Bothwell  and  the 
Queen,  did  so  under  protest,  and  thus  records  it :  — 

"  I  took  heaven  and  earth  to  witness  that  I  abhorred  and  de- 
tested that  marriage  as  odious  and  scandalous  to  the  world ;  and 
seeing  the  best  part  of  the  realm  did  approve  it  either  hy  Jiattery  or 
hy  their  silence,  I  desired  the  faithful  to  pray  earnestly  that  God 
would  turn  to  the  comfort  of  the  realm  that  which  was  done 
against  reason  and  good  conscience." 

1  Memoirs  of  Sir  James  Melvil,  Glasgow,  ed.  1751. 

2  "  Not  a  spear  was  lifted,  not  a  sword  drawn,  to  save  Mary  from  the 
power  of  that  atrocious  ruffian."  —  History  of  Scotland :  Sir  Walter  Scott. 


192 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


Mary's  bridal  robes  were  of  deep  black.  McCrie  ("  Life 
of  Knox,"  p.  294)  says,  She  was  the  most  changed  woman 
in  face  that  her  courtiers  had  seen."  Dii  Croc,  the  French 
Ambassador,  was  told  by  her  people  that,  "unless  God 
aided  her,  they  feared  she  would  become  desperate;"  and 
by  Mary  herself,  that  she  "  could  not  rejoice,  nor  ever 
should  again.  All  she  desired  was  death."  Sir  James 
Melville  records  that  "  the  Queen  was  sa  disdainfully  hand- 
let,  and  with  sic  reproacheful  language,  that  Arthur  Askin 
and  I  being  present,  hard  hir  ask  a  knyfe  to  stik  herself, 
'  or  ellis,'  said  she,  '  I  sail  drown  myself  "  Drury  writes 
to  Cecil  immediately  after  the  marriage  :  The  opinion  of 
divers  is  that  the  Queen  is  the  most  changed  woman  in  face, 
that,  in  so  little  a  time,  without  extremity  of  sickness,  they 
have  seen."  And  even  Maitland  tells  Du  Croc,  "  That  from 
the  day  after  her  nuptials,  she  has  never  ceased  from  tears 
and  lamentations,  and  that  he  (Bothwell)  would  neither 
allow  her  to  see  any  one  nor  any  one  to  see  her."  And 
the  woman  thus  pictured  by  a  mass  of  testimony  positively 
unassailable,  is  described  by  Mr.  Froude  as  "  sensual,"  and 
"  sunk  to  the  level  of  a  brute  !  "  Are  the  bearing  and 
language  of  Mary  Stuart,  as  here  recorded  by  her  enemies, 
the  manifestation  of  her  passionate  love  for  Bothwell  ? 

Space  fails  us  to  point  out  Mr.  Fronde's  violations  of 
historic  truth  in  his  account  of  these  events.  He  would  do 
well  to  confine  himself  to  suppression  and  insinuation. 
Positive  assertion  runs  greater  risk,  as  being  more  readily 
tested.  Xot  a  single  nobleman  was  present"  (at  the  mar- 
riage), (ix.  74.)  Yes,  with  the  exception  of  the  Earl 
of  Crawford,  the  Earl  of  Sutherland,  the  Earl  of  Huntly, 
Lord  John  Hamilton,  Lord  Livingstone,  Lord  Oliphant, 
Lord  Fleming,  Lord  Glammis.  Lord  Boyd,  the  Bishop  of 
Dunblane,  the  Bishop  of  Ross,  and  the  Primate  of  Scot- 
land, —  not  to  mention  certain  small  gentlemen,^ —  Mr. 
Froude  is  quite  right,  —  "  not  a  single  nobleman  was  pres- 

1  Diurnal  of  Occurrents,  111. 


*'  ORIGINAL  WORDS." 


193 


ent."  The  testimony  as  to  INIary's  wretchedness  on  her 
marriage  with  Bothwell  is  so  overwhebning,that  Mr.  Fronde 
is  aux  abois.  Pushed  to  the  wall,  he  adopts  a  heroic  rem- 
edy, avers  "  she  was  jealous  of  his  wife,"  and  regales  the 
reader  with  this  sketch  :  "  The  proud  woman  had  prostrated 
herself  at  his  feet  in  the  agony  of  her  passion,  to  plead  for 
the  continuance  of  his  love."  An  attempt  is  made  to  bol- 
ster up  this  invention  with  the  following  note  (ix.  75)  :  — 

"  How  profoundly  she  was  attached  to  Bothwell,  appears  in  the 
following  letter  —  one  of  the  two  of  which  I  have  recovered  her 
original  words.    It  was  written  just  before  the  marriage." 

A  very  rash  assertion.  Not  a  single  day  was  Bothwell 
absent  from  her  from  April  24  (abduction)  to  May  15 
(marriage).  Then  comes  the  letter  commencing  "  Mon- 
sieur, Si  Tenniiy  de  vostre  absence,"  which  the  historian  is 
careful  not  to  translate. 

"  If  there  be  any  point  agreed  upon  in  Mary's  history,  it  is 
that  she  remained  at  Dunbar  from  the  time  that  Bothwell  carried 
her  thither  till  she  returned  to  Edinburgh  with  him  in  May." 
(Robertson.) 

And  under  what  close  surveillance  she  was  held  by  Both- 
well,  the  rebel  lords  themselves  have  taken  the  pains  to 
tell  us  in  their  Act  of  Parliament :  — 

"  No  nobleman  nor  other  durst  resort  to  her  majesty  to  Speak 
with  her,  or  procure  their  lawful  business  without  suspicion,  but 
by  him,  and  in  his  audience,  her  chamber  doors  being  continually 
watched  with  men  of  war." 

The  writer's  "  I  have  recovered  her  original  ivords^^  is  a 
remarkable  piece  of  cool  presumption  ;  for  the  letter  ("  State 
Papers,"  1568,  vol.  ii.  No.  66)  has  for  long  years  been  ac- 
cessible to  all  and  sundry  who  chose  to  examine  it,  and 
was  repeatedly  copied  and  commented  upon  before  Mr. 
Froude  was  born.  If  the  letter  was  written  to  Bothwell, 
will  some  one  explain  how  it  is  that  Mary  refers  to  two  mar- 
riages, the  one  private,  the  other  public,  —  the  first  as  past, 

13 


194 


MAKY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


the  second  to  come  ?  How  it  is  that,  not  yet  being  married 
to  Both  well,  she  describes  herself  as  his  obedient  and  law- 
ful wife,  and  refers  to  his  neglect  and  absence  ?  The  letter 
is,  in  all  respects,  such  as  an  affectionate  wife  would  write 
to  her  lawful  husband,  and  provokes  from  Dr.  Robertson 
the  remark  that  "  Mary's  adversaries  were  certainly  em- 
ployed very  idly  when  they  produced  this." 

Little  wonder  !  It  is  an  original  letter  of  Mary  to  Darn- 
ley^  to  whom  it  is  historically  certain  she  was  twice  married, 
first  privately,  afterwards  publicly.  Darnley  was  neglect- 
ful, and  distressed  the  Queen  by  his  frequent  absence. 
Bothwell,  we  know  positively,  during  the  one  month  they 
were  married,  never  left  the  Queen  a  single  day.  Does 
any  one  believe  that  an  adulterous  woman,  who  has  just 
murdered  her  husband,  would  write  to  her  paramour  such 
gratuitous  blasphemy  as  "  with  as  great  affection  as  I  pray 
God,  the  only  supporter  of  my  life,  to  give  you,"  etc.  ?  The 
reader  supposes  he  has  before  him  the  whole  letter,  but 
Mr.  Froude  has  suppressed  the  last  ten  lines,  including 
the  passage,  "  She  who  will  be  forever  unto  you  an  humble 
and  obedient  lawful  wife." 


CHAPTER  XVII. 


CARBERRY.  LOCHLEVEN.  —  LANGSIDE. 

"Mary  Stuart  was  suffered,  without  eitlier  warning  or  opposition,  to  unite 
herself  with  this  worthless  man,  and  it  was  not  until  her  honor  became  in- 
separable from  his  that  the  same  advisers  changed  their  note,  sounded  an 
alarm  to  the  nation,  and  called  on  all  true  subjects  to  rescue  the  Queen  from 
the  control  of  Bothwell."  —  Snt  Walter  Scott:  History  of  Scotland. 

When  Mary  was  brought  by  Bothwell  from  Dunbar  to 
Edinburgh,  she  was  taken,  not  to  Holyrood,  but  to  the  Castle, 
where  she  was  virtually  a  prisoner.  She  was  not  alloM^ed 
to  visit  her  child  at  Stirling,  and  it  appears  most  probable 
that  the  dreadful  scene  which  terminated  in  her  threat  of 
suicide  was  caused  by  her  resistance  to  Bothwell's  demand 
for  the  custody  of  the  Prince.  Access  was  not  allowed  to 
her,  but  by  Bothwell's  permission,  and  she  never  appeared 
in  public,  but  on  compulsion  and  guarded.  Her  wretched- 
ness was  completed  by  Bothwell's  conduct.  "  He  was  so 
beastly  and  suspicious,"  says  Melville,  "  that  he  suffered  her 
not  to  pass  a  single  day  without  causing  her  to  shed  abun- 
dance of  salt  tears."  Meantime,  a  fresh  plot  and  a  new 
coalition  were  formed,  and  of  the  nine  earls  at  its  head, 
five  of  them  had  signed  the  bond  approving  Bothwell's 
marriage  with  the  Queen. 

Sir  James  Balfour  held  the  Castle  of  Edinburgh,  and  sold 
it  for  a  price  to  the  lords.  Dunbar  was  thus  the  only  castle 
left  to  Bothwell.  The  chief  insurgent  leaders,  Morton  and 
Hume,  both  signers  of  the  Ainslie  bond,  were  at  the  head 
of  a  large  force,  and  Bothwell  had  got  together  some 
two  thousand  men.  The  hostile  bands  met  at  Carberry 
Hill,  some  six  miles  from  Edinburgh.  Du  Croc,  the  French 


196  MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 

Ambassador,  went  on  the  field  for  the  laudable  purpose  of 
preventing  bloodshed.  He  was  in  profound  ignorance  of 
the  fact  that  Morton,  Maitland,  and  others  of  these  lords 
wei  e  themselves  as  much  the  murderers  of  Darnley  as  was 
Bothwell,  and  in  his  simplicity  sympathized  with  them. 
The  lords  told  him  that  there  were  two  conditions  on  which 
fighting  could  be  prevented.  Fust,  the  Queen  should 
separate  herself  from  Bothwell,  in  which  case  they  were 
ready  "  to  serve  her  upon  their  knees  as  her  most  humble  and 
obedient  subjects  and  servants."  Second,  that  Bothwell  should 
come  forth  between  the  two  armies,  and  make  good  his 
challenge  to  meet  in  single  combat  any  one  who  should 
maintain  that  he  was  the  murderer  of  the  late  king.  Du 
Croc  carried  their  conditions  to  Mary,  telling  her  that  the 
lords  were  her  very  humble  and  affectionate  subjects  ; " 
upon  which  she  remarked  that  it  was  ill  of  them  to  con- 
tradict their  own  signatures  afler  having  married  her  to 
Bothwell,  having  previously  acquitted  him  of  the  deed  of 
which  they  now  accuse  him.  The  fancy  sketch  of  the  re- 
maining events  of  the  day  need  not  be  dwelt  upon :  the 
white  flag,  the  Inchkeith  fragment,  the  Queen's  fuming 
and  chafing,"  her  free,  fierce  nature,"  etc.  According  to 
Melville,  Kirkaldy  entreated  the  Queen  to  put  herself  into 
the  hands  of  the  lords,  telling  her  how  they  would  all  love 
her  and  serve  her,  if  she  would  abandon  him  who  was  the 
murderer  of  her  own  husband."  He  brought  her  a  second 
message,  "  assuring  her,  in  their  united  names,  they  would 
do  as  they  had  said."  Before  closing  with  Kirkaldy's  prop- 
osition, Mary  exacted  the  promise  that  '-the  Duke,"  as  she 
called  Bothwell,  should  not  be  molested,  and  they  should 
do  no  harm  to  hir  companie  but  licens  thame  to  retire 
thairselfs  without  ony  skaith."^  Bothwell  remonstrated,  but 
the  Queen  was  firm,  and,  accompanied  by  a  handful  of  his 
followers,  he  rode  off  towards  Dunbar. 

Mr.  Froude's    Bothwell  galloped  off  unpursued  "  is  amus- 

1  James  Beton,  in  Laing. 


INFAMY  OF  THE  LORDS. 


197 


log,  for  he  was  the  last  man  on  earth  Morton  and  Maitland 
wanted  on  their  hands.  A  prisoner,  he  must  be  tried,  but 
they  dared  not  arraign  their  own  accomplice  for  the  murder 
of  Darnley.  He  could  have  been  pursued  and  taken  be- 
fore he  reached  Dunbar,  but  it  was  to  their* interest  to  be 
rid  of  him.^ 

Our  historian's  "  long  passionate  kiss  "  (ix.  93)  is  merely 
one  of  his  theatrical  properties,  as  is  also  the  courage  with 
which  he  invests  Morton.  On  meeting  the  lords  who  came 
toward  her,  Mary  said  :  — 

"  My  lords,  I  am  come  to  you,  not  out  of  any  fear  I  had  of  my 
life,  nor  yet  doubting  of  victory,  if  matters  had  come  to  the 
worst,  but  to  save  the  effusion  of  Christian  blood  ;  and  therefore 
have  I  come  to  you  trusting  in  your  promises  that  you  will  respect 
me  and  give  me  the  obedience  due  to  your  native  queen  and 
lawful  sovereign."  (Keith.) 

Could  her  language,  under  the  circumstances,  have  been 
more  temperate  and  dignified  ?  Yet  we  find  her  described 
as  "  scornful,  proucl,  defiant  as  ever."  Morton,  answering 
in  the  name  of  all,  bent  his  knee  before  her  and  said,  "  Here 
is  the  place  where  your  Grace  should  be,  and  we  will  honor, 
serve,  and  obey  you  as  loyally  as  ever  did  the  nobles  of 
this  realm  your  progenitors."  (Chalmers.)  Scarcely  had 
the  rebel  ranks  closed  around  the  Queen,  when  a  banner 
was  held  up  before  her,  upon  which  was  represented  Darn- 
ley  lying  dead  beneath  a  tree  with  an  infant  kneeling  near 
it,  praying,  "Judge  and  avenge  My  Cause,  O  Lord." 
With  this  banner  borne  before  her  she  was  led  into  Edin- 
burgh, assailed  by  the  common  soldiers  with  violent  abuse 
and  the  foulest  epithets.    Tears,  anguish,  and  indignation 

1  Camden  says  {Annals,  p.  148),  that  the  lords  "  privily  admonished  him 
speedily  to  withdraw  himselfe,  for  fear  lest,  being  taken,  he  might  have  re- 
vealed the  whole  eomplot;  and  that  from  his  flight  they  might  draw  argu- 
ment and  subject  whereof  to  accuse  the  Queen  for  the  murder  of  the  King." 
It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  Camden  wrote  with  all  Cecil's  papers,  both 
private  and  public,  before  him,  and  thus  had  facilities  of  information  as 
to  matters  in  Scotland,  not  since  enjoyed  by  any  writer. 


198 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


choked  her  utterance.  The  outrage  was  so  sudden,  so  hor- 
rible, that  she  swooned.  Recovering  herself,  and  with  her 
proud  spirit  roused  by  such  utter  baseness,  she  turned  upon 
the  lords,  half  maddened  with  insult  and  perfidy,  and  told 
them  in  terms  all  too  plain  what  she  thought  of  them.  Mr. 
Burton  who,  like  Mr.  Froude  always  accepts  Mary  Stuart's 
keenest  anguish  with  calm  resignation,  thus  describes  the 
scene :  "  The  confederates  were  not  destined  to  find  in 
their  captive  the  meek  resignation  of  a  broken  spirit." 

She  let  loose  her  formidable  tongue  and  hit  right  and  left 
with  maddening  effect."  Did  it  occur  to  Mr.  Burton  when 
writing  that  this  "  maddening  effect  "  could  never  have  been 
produced  upon  innocent,  high-minded  men,  by  a  vulgar 
murderess?  and  that  her  attitude  and  bearing  were  not 
those  of  a  detected  culprit  ?  Mr.  Burton  continues  with  a 
reference  to  "  her  disheveled  appearance,"  and  says  "  that 
she  who  was  never  known  to  depart  from  the  etiquette  of 
her  rank  except  to  dignify  that  departure  by  her  grace  and 
wit,  should  so  revolt  against  her  proper  nature,"  is  remark- 
able, and  he  adds,  "  It  goes  with  other  incidents  to  show 
that  the  terrible  excitement  of  her  recent  life  must  have  in 
some  measure  disordered  her  brain." 

She  called  Lindsay  to  her  and  demanded  his  hand. 
"  By  the  hand  that  is  now  in  yours,"  she  exclaimed,  "  I  will 
have  your  head  for  this."  Poor  Mary !  If  she  had  ever 
really  learned  the  merest  rudiments  of  a  Medicean-Machia- 
vellic  policy  she  never  would  have  made  such  a  speech  as 
that.  It  was  not  the  moment  for  aggression.  Generous, 
noble,  kind,  and  confiding,  her  rare  threats  of  revenge  were 
the  only  promises  she  ever  broke.  Fainting,  weakened 
with  intense  mental  agony,  travel-stained,  with  the  dust  of 
hot  summer  intermingled  with  her  tears,  without  suste- 
nance the  live-long  day,  she  was  thus  dragged  along  through 
hooting  and  insult  taken  up  and  reinforced  at  the  gates  of 
her  capital  by  an  excited  populace,  and  thrown  in  the  com- 
mon prison  of  Edinburgh,  into  a  room  without  attendants  or 


INHUMAN  OUTRAGE. 


199 


even  a  single  female  to  stay  with  her.  Here,  closely  con- 
fined for  twenty-four  hours,  no  one  was  allowed  to  approach 
her,  and  the  horrible  banner  was  placed  directly  before  her 
window. 

But  what  shall  be  said  of  the  authors  of  so  inhuman  an 
outrage?  These  men  nuirdered  Riccio  ;  they  were  the  mur- 
derers of  Darnley  ;  they  acquitted  Bothwell  and  brought 
about  his  marriage  with  Mary  ;  and  now,  having  her  in  their 
power,  treat  her  with  a  personal  brutality  never  inflicted 
on  the  vilest  criminal,  and  end  their  work  by  parade  of  a 
blasphemous  picture  calculated  to  arouse  and  let  loose 
upon  this  defenseless  woman  the  fury  of  an  excited  mob. 
"The  revolting  'humbug'  of  this  last  stroke,"  says  the 
"  Edinburgh  Review,"  "  defies  comment.  More  disgraceful 
conduct  does  not  sully  the  page  of  history.  Even  if  Mary 
Stuart  were  in  very  truth  the  '  murderess  of  Kirk  o'  Field,' 
our  sympathies  are  rather  with  her  than  with  men  who, 
under  no  equal  temptation,  were  at  once  murderers,  trai- 
tors, liars,  and  hypocrites." 

Mr.  Fronde's  account  is  now  made  up  of  Maitland  and 
Calderwood.  No  such  conversation  with  the  Queen  as 
Maitland  details  ever  took  place.  Du  Croc's  authority  is 
cited,  but  he  merely  undertakes  to  report  what  Maitland 
told  him  in  a  conversation  three  hours  long.  Here  is  a 
specimen :  Maitland  swore  to  Du  Croc  with  a  great  oath 
that  they,  the  lords,  had  no  intelligence  w^ith  the  Queen  of 
England.  Maitland  swore  to  this  with  Cecil's  letters  in 
his  pocket  at  the  moment !  "  11  me  jura  sur  son  Dieu 
que  jusque  ici  ils  n'avaient  ancune  intelligence  avec  la 
Reyne  d'Angleterre." 

Then  comes  the  alleged  letter  of  Mary  to  Bothwell  — 
another  of  Maitland's  inventions.  Kirkaldy  was  indignant 
at  their  infamous  treatment  of  the  Queen,  and  to  quiet  him 
Maitland  invents  the  story  of  a  letter  she  had  just  written 
Bothwell.  Such  a  letter  —  showing  her  inordinate  affec- 
tion for  Bothwell  —  would  indeed  have  been  a  godsend  to 


200 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


them,  for  it  was  precisely  what  was  needed  to  prove  that 
assertion.  But  the  letter  was  never  seen  by  mortal  eyes. 
Maitland  said  there  was  such  a  letter.  The  historian 
Robertson  totally  rejects  the  fable.  Even  Buchanan  and 
Knox  fail  to  use  it,  and  when  we  come  to  Murray's  Articles 
accusing  the  Queen  at  Westminster,  the  letter  is  not  visi- 
ble, and  in  its  place  we  have  "  and  in  farther  pruif  of  hir 
indurat  affectioun  towards  him  she  conveyit  a  purs  with  gold 
to  him."  Better  "  farther  pruif  "  would  have  been  a  letter. 
But  Mr.  Froude  sees  the  letter  plainly,  and  Mr.  Burton 
coolly  states  :  "  It  seems  clear,  too,  that  she  wrote  a  letter," 
etc.  "  Melville  renders  its  purport," —  quoting  it  as  though 
Melville  had  seen  it,  when  Melville  distinctly  says  "  it  was 
alleged  that  her  majesty  did  write  a  letter  sent  to  the  Earl 
of  Bothwell."  The  indignation  of  the  better  part  of  the 
citizens  of  Edinburgh  is  concealed  by  both  these  historians, 
although  Mr.  Burton  virtually  admits  the  imputation  con- 
cerning the  "  hired  strumpets  "  of  the  lords  when  he  says  : 
"  It  was  observed  that  the  loudest  and  fiercest  denunciations 
came  from  her  own  sex,  and  not  the  most  virtuous  portion 
of  it."  As  soon  as  they  were  suffered  to  do  so,  Mary's  ladies 
—  Mary  Seton,  Mary  Livingstone,  and  three  others  — 
bravely  flew  to  her  side  and  walked  with  her  in  the  horrible 
night  procession  from  the  Provost's  House  to  Holyrood. 

As  an  attempt  to  rescue  the  Queen  was  imminent,  the 
lords  hurried  her  off  at  midnight  to  Lochleven  —  a  ride  of 
thirty  miles  —  on  a  miserable  horse.  Camden  says  they 
treated  her  "  ignominiously  and  disrespectfully,"  and  con- 
signed her  to  prison 

"  at  Lochleven,  under  the  custody  of  the  Earl  of  Moray's 
mother,  who  was  James  V.'s  concubine,  who  further  persecuted 
her  with  such  shameless  malice  during  her  restraint,  boasting  how 
she  was  lawful  wife  to  James  V.  and  her  son  lawfully  descended 
from  him." 

On  the  night  the  rebel  lords  entered  Edinburgh  from 
Carberry  Hill,  they  arrested  and  imprisoned  one  Captain 


cullen's  confession. 


201 


Cullen.  "  They  tewk  Capt.  Culain  that  neight  they  en- 
tered the  town  quha  has  been  ay  sensyn  in  the  Irnis 
(irons),"  writes  John  Beaton,  June  17.  This  Captain  Cul- 
len is  the  man  referred  to  by  Drury  writing  to  Cecil  April 
24,  1567.1 

From  his  correspondence,  Drury  appears  to  have  ob- 
tained a  great  deal  of  information  concerning  the  Darn- 
ley  murder,  at  the  time  of  the  visit  of  Murray  on  his  way 
to  France.  Now  it  would  have  thrown  a  stronj;  light  on 
the  circumstances  attending  the  murder  if  we  could  have 
ascertained  the  names  of  the  persons  to  whom  Cullen  gave 
such  excellent  advice.  We  say  excellent,  for  it  appears 
to  have  been  adopted  and  successfully  carried  out,  al- 
though Drury's  informant  states  that  Darnley  made  a  hard 
fight  for  his  life.  Who  were  these  men  ?  Cullen  could 
have  told.  "  It  was  notorious  that  Cullen  revealed  the 
whole  circumstances."  (Tytler.)  And  Cullen  did  tell,  but 
after  making  confession  was  strangled  in  his  dungeon  by 
order  of  the  lords  who  arrested  him,  —  Morton  at  their 
head.  Why  was  Cullen's  confession  suppressed  ?  Because 
Archibald  Douglas,  Morton's  nephew,  was  present  at  the 
murder,  representing  Morton,  just  as  Ormiston  and  his 
companions  represented  Bothwell,  who  also  was  not  actually 
present.  The  man  seen  at  the  murder  in  armor  and  with 
slippers  over  his  boots  was  Archibald  Douglas.  The  man 
who  with  others  was  entreatingly  appealed  to  by  Darnley 
as  his  "  kinsmen,"  was  Archibald  Douglas.  Now  we 
know  why  Cullen  was  strangled  in  prison  by  the  men 
who  were  in  rebellion,  because  "  they  desired  only  to 
avenge  the  murder  of  the  King,"  and  who  with  lying  mid- 
night placards  and  blasphemous  banners  were  denounc- 
ing a  helpless  captive  woman. 

On  the  8th  of  December,  1567,  the  Queen  would  be 

1  "  The  King  was  long  of  dying,  and  to  his  strength  made  debate  for  his 
life."  "It  was  Captain  Culleti's  persuasion  for  more  surety  to  have  the 
King  strangled,  and  not  to  trust  to  the  train  of  powder  alone,  affirming 
that  he  had  known  many  so  saved." 


202 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


twenty-five  years  of  age  —  the  period  limited  for  her  re- 
vocation of  the  enormous  grants  of  crown  lands  made  to 
Murray  and  the  leading  nobles.  This  was  the  prize  they 
were  struggling  for.  We  are  told  (ix.  114),  that  "no 
sooner,  however,  was  Mary  Stuart  at  Lochleven  than  pri- 
vate feuds,  and  political  divisions  and  sympathies,  split 
and  rent  the  confederacy  in  all  directions,"  as  though 
the  lords  confederated  in  rebellion  comprised  the  strength 
of  the  nobility.  Very  far  from  it.  Their  situation  was 
very  critical.  They  w^ere  in  a  small  minority.  The  Ham- 
iltons  in  the  south,  Huntly  and  Sutherland  in  the  north, 
and  the  great  Border  clans  were  all  for  the  Queen.  Ar- 
gyll did  not  join  them,  and  they  had  but  four  earls,  Mor- 
ton, Glencairn,  Atholl,  and  Mar.  The  story  of  their 
weakness  is  best  told  by  one  of  themselves,  Maitland,  who 
related  that  after  they  had  imprisoned  the  Queen  they 
did  not  receive  the  support  they  had  counted  upon.^ 

It  was  the  ever-recurring  lesson  of  history  —  the  auda- 
cious and  united  few  against  the  irresolute  and  divided 
many.  The  strength  of  the  rebel  lords  was  in  their  ability 
and  energy,  and  above  all,  in  John  Knox,  who  had  lately 
returned  to  Edinburoh  for  the  first  time  since  his  fiis^ht 
at  the  murder  of  Riccio.  All  the  pulpits  of  the  capital 
now  thundered  the  most  furious  invectives  and  wildest 
denunciations  against  the  Queen,  and  the  lords  could  say 
through  them  what  they  dared  not  say  themselves. 
Throckmorton  reports  these  outrages  in  his  letters  to 
London.  A  general  assembly  of  the  Kirk  was  now 
held,  and  its  moderator  was  —  Buchanan.  With  this 
strong  body  the  rebel  lords  quickly  made  alliance,  strength- 

1  "  Never  ane  came  more  to  us  than  we  were  at  Carberry  Hill  ; "  that  in 
their  desperation  they  set  up  the  young  Prince  as  King  "just  as  a  fetch  to 
get  them  out  of  the  scrape."  It  was,  he  said,  "  as  if  you  were  in  a  boat  on 
fire  — you  would  loup  into  the  sea,  and  then  when  yon  were  like  to  drown, 
you  would  be  glad  to  get  back  into  the  boat."  —  Illustrations  of  Scottish 
Eistoi^y,  Dalzell. 


THE  LORDS  AND  THE  KIRK. 


203 


ening  it  with  solemn  promises  of  what  they  would  do  for 
the  Kirk  in  the  matter  of  the  church  lands.^ 

Meantime  Charles  IX.  of  France,  sincerely  attached  to 
his  sister-in-hiw,  would  have  moved  in  earnest  for  her,  but 
for  the  opposition  of  Catherine  de  Medicis,  for  the  court  of 
France  was  now  in  reality  what  it  never  was  when  the 
Queen  of  Scots  was  in  France  — that  "court  of  Catherine 
de  Medicis  "  of  which  even  historians  talk  so  loosely.  On  * 
the  other  hand,  it  would  appear  that  Elizabeth  was  in 
earnest  in  her  disapproval  of  the  treatment  of  Mary  by  the 
rebel  lords.  She  would  give  them  no  money,  and  she  made 
serious  threats  against  them.^  Unfortunately,  though,  for 
Mary  and  for  herself,  Elizabeth's  character  for  insincerity 
and  duplicity  was  so  well  established  that  no  one  believed 
her.  Mary  thought  that  her  envoy  to  England,  Sir  Robert 
Melville,  might  aid  her.  But  he  was  banded  with  the  lords, 
and  was  her  secret  enemy. 

With  abundant  leisure  on  their  hands,  no  attempt  was 
made  by  the  lords  to  capture  Bothwell.  He  was  at  Dun- 
bar, a  short  ride  from  the  capital,  all  this  time.  Finally, 
on  the  2Gth  of  June,  a  reward  is  offered  for  him,  and  sent 
to  Dunbar  with  a  notice  to  its  keeper  to  deliver  up  the 
castle.  This  was  in  reality  a  considerate  hint  to  Bothwell 
to  leave.  He  evidently  so  received  it,  and,  after  making 
leisurely  preparation,  sailed  for  the  north  of  Scotland.  Even 
after  this,  on  the  11th  of  July,  they  declared  in  writing  to 
Throckmorton  that  Bothwell  had  carried  off  the  Queen, 
"  and  by  fear,  force,  and  other  extraordinary  and  more  un- 
lawful means  compelled  her  to  become  bedfellow  to  an- 
other wife's  husband."    And  yet  they  afterwards  claimed 

1  It  is  sad  to  learn  that  these  champions  of  virtue  deceived  the  holy  men, 
for,  records  a  Kirk  historian,  "  having  once  attained  tiieir  ends,  they  did 
forget  all,  and  turned  adversaries;  "  and  John  Knox  says  with  much  feel- 
ing, "  How  they  performed  their  promises  God  knows  a'ways." 

2  The  success  of  subjects  in  imprisoning  tiieir  sovereign  was  not  a  pleasant 
thing  for  Elizabeth  to  contemplate,  and  it  behooved  her  to  discountenance 
such  doings. 


201 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


that  they  already,  on  the  previous  20th  June,  had  in  their 
possession  the  casket-letters,  and  among  these  casket-let- 
ters were  those  from  Stirling  agreeing  to  the  abduction. 
Murray  and  his  friends  dared  uot  go  before  a  Scotch  Parlia- 
ment with  the  Queen.  But  something  nuist  be  done.  Some- 
thing was  done.  Up  to  this  time  (end  of  November)  the 
Queen  had  been  spoken  of  in  all  the  public  acts  and  proc- 
lamations as  the  victim  of  Bothwell  forced  into  a  marriage 
with  him.  It  was  now  resolved  that  she  should  be  accused 
of  complicity  with  Bothwell  in  both  murder  and  abduction. 
But  the  bond  signed  by  the  nobles  for  the  murder  of  Darn- 
ley  was  still  in  erxistence.  It  had  been  left  by  Bothwell  "  in 
a  little  coffer  or  desk  of  green  velvet "  at  the  Castle  of 
Edinburgh,  in  the  possession  of  Sir  James  Balfour.  To 
accuse  the  Queen  of  a  crime  which  by  this  bond  could  be 
proven  to  be  the  crime  of  others,  would  entail  some  risk. 
Sir  James  was  open  to  conviction,  but,  as  Throckmorton 
wrote  Cecil,  stood  out  for  a  high  price.  He  had  been 
already  well  paid  for  holding  the  castle  for  the  rebel  lords. 
He  wanted  better  pay  for  giving  up  both  castle  and  bond 
to  Murray,  and  he  got  it.  Murray  bribed  him  with  £5,000, 
an  immense  sum  of  money  in  those  days,  a  valuable  grant 
of  church  lands,  a  slice  off  his  own  estates,  a  remission  for 
the  King's  murder,  and  an  annuity  to  his  son.  It  is  touch- 
ingly  related  (ix.  25  of  the  "  History  of  England ")  how 
Murray  made  an  effort  to  arrest  Sir  James  Balfour  as  a 
murderer  of  the  King,  "  but  he  had  been  instantly  crossed 
by  Bothwell."  But  this  second  effort  appears  to  have  been 
more  successful,  and  the  Regent  now  held  Balfour  in  the 
double  bonds  of  interest  and  affection.  And  here  the  re- 
flection may  not  be  misplaced,  that  in  calling  Balfour  "  the 
most  corrupt  man  of  the  age,"  the  historian  Robertson  has 
disregarded  the  just  claims  of  others  to  that  distinction. 
As  might  be  expected,  there  now  goes  a  letter  from  Drury 
to  Cecil,  November  28,  1567,  reporting :  "The  writings 
which  did  comprehend  the  names  and  consents  of  the 


MURRAY  AND  THE  MURDERERS. 


205 


chiefs  for  the  nnirdering  of  the  King  is  turned  into  ashes."  ^ 
The  other  nuirderers  were  of  course  rewarded  and  honored 
by  all  the  powerful  Regent  Murray  ;  and  Lethington,  Mor- 
ton, Huntly,  and  Argyll  were  retained  in  or  promoted  to 
the  highest  positions  of  trust  and  honor  in  the  kingdom, 
all  which  was,  we  presume  a  part  of  the  system  under 
which  "  The  Regent,''  as  we  are  told  (ix.  170),  '■^  set  himself 
to  the  solid  work  of  restoring  the  majesty  of  justice.^'  Mr. 
Fronde's  struggles  at  this  stage  of  his  task  are  simply 
pitiable.^ 

Mary's  imprisonment  at  Lochleven  lasted  eleven  months. 
Meanwhile,  the  Regent  had  become  obnoxious.  The  dy- 
ing confessions  of  Hay,  Hepburn,  and  others  had  told  the 
crowds  about  the  scaffold  who  were  the  murderers  of  the 
King,  and  that  the  Queen  had  no  part  in  it.  From  the 
seed  of  these  declarations  then  implanted  in  the  hearts  and 
memories  of  the  Scottish  people  has  sprung  —  among  them 
all,  high  and  low,  gentle  and  simple  —  that  universal  faith 
ever  since  manifested  by  them  in  the  innocence  of  Mary 
Stuart.  Satirical  ballads,  lampoons,  and  denunciatory 
placards  against  the  Regent  and  his  party  now  abounded. 
People  were  scandalized  at  Murray's  pretense  of  adminis- 
tering justice  by  associating  with  and  rewarding  the  mur- 
derers of  Darnley.  Denunciations  were  nailed  to  his  gate, 
caricatures  and  violent  accusations  were  in  circulation. 
He  was  called  tyrant,  robber,  bastard,  and  threatened  with 

1  Mr.  Froude  has  this  delicious  commentary  on  the  burning  :  "  The 
act  itself  was  eminently  natural."    (ix.  200.) 

2  Although  hoodwinked  by  the  casket-letters,  even  the  French  historian 
Mignet  has  the  candor  to  acknowledge  at  least  a  portion  of  the  truth.  He 
says  that  neither  Lethington,  Huntly,  Argyll,  Balfour,  Hamilton,  nor  Morton 
were  summoned  before  a  tribunal  which  was  partial,  inexorable,  or  inactive, 
according  to  the  rank  and  standing  of  the  guilty.  "  The  Regent  dared  not 
touch  them.  They  had  raised  him  to  his  position,  and,  united  against  him 
could  easily  have  oveYthrown  him.  He  even  conferred  favors  on  several 
of  them,  who  should  rather  have  been  punished."  "  Le  regent  n'osa  sdvir 
a  leur  ^gard.  Us  I'avaient  dlev('%  et  ils  I'auraient  ais^ment  renvers<5  s'ils 
s'^taient  unis  contre  lui.  W  accorda  meme  des  faveurs  a  plusieurs  I'entre 
eux,  qui  auraient  merite  des  chatiments."  —  Mignet^  vol.  i.  p.  376. 


206 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


death  if  he  dared  lift  a  finger  against  the  Queen.  Mr. 
Froude  has  seen  all  this  and  more  in  De  Silva's  letters  at 
Siniancas,  and  in  Drury's  letters  to  Cecil.  The  French 
Ambassador  reported  to  his  government  that  two  thirds 
of  the  people  of  Scotland  were  ready  to  rise  against  Murray 
in  order  to  liberate  the  Queen  and  charge  him  and  his 
associates  with  the  murder  of  Darnley. 

Mary  made  her  escape  from  Lochleven  on  the  evening 
of  the  2d  of  May,  and  in  a  few  days  Imd  an  army  of  6,000 
men.  Mr.  Froude  makes  a  desperate  attempt  (ix.  215)  to 
persuade  the  reader  that  the  Queen's  sujjporters  were 
merely  "  Catholics,"  but  the  fact  has  been  noted  that  the 
leading  nobles  who  came  to  her  support  were  Protes- 
tants, the  Earls  of  Huntly,  Argyll,  Eglinton,  Cassilis,  and 
Kothes,  Lords  Claud  Hamilton,  Herries,  Fleming,  and 
Livingstone.^ 

With  all  the  resources  of  the  government  at  his  com- 
mand, Murray  conld  raise  but  4,000  men  wherewith  to  op- 
pose the  Queen's  army  of  6,000  ^  not  yet  filled  up  by 
Huntly's  large  reinforcements  from  the  north.  Mr.  Froude 
is  merely  mistaken  in  saying  (ix.  223)  that  Murray's  force 
was  "  better  armed,  better  appointed,  and  outnumbering 
hers."  The  great  advantage  Murray  had  was  in  the  pres- 
ence and  aid  of  Kirkaldy  of  Grange,  the  best  soldier  in 
England  and  Scotland.  The  armies  met  at  Langside. 
Against  her  own  better  judgment  the  Queen  was  induced 
to  fight  the  battle,  and  she  lost  it. 

1  That  in  spite  of  all  the  eiforts  of  Murray  and  his  faction,  and  in  spite 
of  all  the  violence  of  the  preachers,  she  —  the  Catholic  Queen  of  Scotland, 
the  daughter  of  the  hated  house  of  Guise,  the  reputed  mortal  enemy  of 
their  religion  —  should  now  after  being  maligned  as  the  most  abandoned 
of  her  sex,  find  her  best  frien-ffs  among  her  own  Protestant  subjects,  ap- 
pears at  first  sight  inexplicable.  A  phenomenon  so  strange  admits  of  only 
one  explanation.  If  tliroiighout  her  reign  she  had  not  loyally  kept  her 
promises  of  security  and  toleration  to  her  Protestant  subjects,  they  assur- 
edly would  not  in  her  hour  of  need  have  risked  their  lives  and  fortunes  in 
her  defense. —  Hosnck,  p.  381. 

2  ^h•.  Burton  gives  t!ie  Queen  6,000;  Murray,  4,500. 


HARVEST  IN  MAY. 


207 


The  enthusiastic  and  noble  rally  of  the  Scotch  Protes- 
tant nobility  to  the  standard  of  Mary  Stuart  is  very  natu- 
rally a  source  of  unhappiness  to  our  historian,  who,  by  way 
of  compensation,  would  seek  to  persuade  us  that  she  was 
detested  by  the  people.  He  tells  us  (ix.  229)  that  "  peas- 
ants, as  she  struggled  along  the  by-lanes,  cut  at  her  with 
their  reaping  hooks."  Mr.  Ilosack,  as  a  Scotchman  who 
knows  his  country,  mildly  remarks  on  this  :  "  There 
must  be  some  strange  mistake  here,  for  never  within  hu- 
man memory  did  reaping  commence  in  Scotland  in  May, 
and  Langside  was  fought  on  the  13th  of  that  month."  In 
a  note  on  the  same  page  (ix.  229)  the  English  historian 
mutters  some  words  concerning  a  person  "  who  did  not  in- 
variably tell  the  truth,"  but  we  have  not  time  to  examine 
the  passage. 

And  now  Mary  Stuart  made  the  great  mistake  of  her 
life.  Against  the  advice  of  her  friends,  she  resolved  to 
throw  herself  on  the  generosity  of  Elizabeth,  whose  ardent 
professions  of  friendship  had  been  profuse  during  her  im- 
prisonment at  Lochleven.  Accompanied  by  her  ladies  and 
her  stanch  Protestant  adherents,  the  lords  Herries,  Living- 
stone, and  Fleming,  she  crossed  the  Solway  in  an  open 
boat.  The  Queen  of  Scots  went  to  her  fate  —  a  prison 
and  the  scaffold.  Elizabeth  pledged  her  word  to  Mary 
that  she  should  be  restored  to  her  throne.  She  at  the  same 
time  pledged  her  word  to  Murray  that  his  sister  should 
never  be  permitted  to  return  to  Scotland.  Then  began  the 
Scottish  Queen's  long  nineteen  years'  martyrdom.  The 
conference  at  York  and  the  commission  at  Westminster 
were  mockeries  of  justice.  It  was  pretended  there  were 
two  parties  present  before  them  —  Murray  and  his  associ- 
ates on  one  side,  Mary  on  the  other.  Mary  was  kept  a 
prisoner  in  a  distant  castle,  while  Murray,  received  with 
honor  at  court,  held  private  and  secret  consultations  with 
members  of  both  these  quasi-judicial  bodies,  showing  them 
the  testimony  he  intended  to  produce,  and  obtaining  their 


208  MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 

judgment  as  to  the  sufficiency  of  his  proofs  before  he  pub- 
licly produced  them ;  these  proofs  being  the  forged  letters 
of  the  silver  casket.  These  letters  were  never  seen  by 
Mary  Stuart,  and  even  copies  of  them  were  repeatedly  and 
persistently  refused  her. 


4t 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 


THE  CASKET-LETTERS. 

"  TTint  the  leiiers  were  forged  is  now  vinde  sojjalpable  that  perhaps  they  will 
never  more  be  cited  as  testimonies.^''  —  Dr.  Johnson. i 

Dr.  Johnson  appears  to  have  counted  without  his  — 
Froude.  Denounced  from  the  beginning  as  forgeries, 
these  letters  are  rejected  by  such  writers  as  Goodal 
(1754),  Gilbert  Stuart  ("  History  of  Scotland,  1762),  Tyt- 
ler  (1759),  and  Whitaker  (1786). 

Tytler  the  historian  said  it  was  "  impossible  for  any  sin- 
cere inquirer  after  the  truth  to  receive  such  evidence." 
Later,  came  Dr.  Lingard,  of  the  same  opinion.  Chalmers 
answered  Laing's  book,  and  proved  conclusively,  with  a 
mass  of  newly  discovered  testimony,  that  the  accusers  of 
Mary  were  themselves  the  murderers  of  Darnley.  Sir 
James  Melville  is  freely  cited  by  Mr.  Froude  as  good  au- 
thority. He  plainly  intimates  that  the  casket-letter  inven- 
tion was  a  disgraceful  piece  of  business,  and  says  plainly 
that  the  crafty  Cecil  persuaded  Murray  to  accuse  the 
Queen  of  Scots  in  order  that  Elizabeth  might  have  "  some 
pretext  whereby  to  make  answer  to  foreign  ambassadors." 
("  Memoirs,"  p.  186.) 

The  distinguished  Robert  Henry,  a  Scotch  Presbyterian 
divine  (1718-1790),  author  of  a  "  History  of  Great  Brit- 
ain "  praised  by  Hume,  Robertson,  and  Johnson,  says :  "  I 
have  been  long  convinced  that  the  unfortunate  Queen 
Mary  was  basely  betrayed  and  cruelly  oppressed  during 
her  life,  and  calumniated  after  her  death."  ^ 

1  See  Appendix  No.  8. 

2  Transactions  Scottish  Antiquarian  Society,  vol.  i.  p.  538. 

U 


210 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


Sir  Walter  Scott  ("  History  of  Scotland  ")  rejected  them, 
addiug-  that  "  the  direct  evidence  produced  in  support  of 
Mary's  alleged  guilt  was  liable  to  such  important  objec- 
tions, that  it  could  not  now  be  admitted  to  convict  a  felon 
for  the  most  petty  crime." 

The  editor  of  Bishop  Keith's  "  Affairs  of  Church  and 
State  in  Scotland "  says :  "  A  more  outrageous  mass  of 
rubbish  and  falsehood  never  was  printed." 

Miss  Strickland  has  thoroughly  exposed  them,  and  sueh 
distinguished  Scotch  authorities  as  Aytoun,  Hosack,  and 
Caird  reject  them.  Hundreds  of  scholars,  fully  the  equals 
of  Mr.  Froude  in  ability  and  acquirements,  are  thoroughly 
satisfied  of  the  forgery  of  these  letters.  He  has,  therefore, 
no  choice  but  to  recognize  the  necessity  of  establishing 
their  genuineness.  He  makes  this  recognition,  but  pro- 
ceeds without  ceremony  to  use  tlie  letters,  quieting  his 
readers  with  the  assurance  that  their  authenticity  "  will  be 
discussed  in  a  future  volume  in  connection  with  their  dis- 
covery," and,  meantime,  weaves  the  tainted  papers  so  in- 
geniously into  his  narrative  that  it  is  not  always  easy  for 
the  reader  to  distinguish  "  Froude  "  from  "  casket."  In  the 
same  paragraph  with  his  promise,  the  reader  will  remark 
an  intimation  that  the  historian  may,  possibly,  not  keep  his 
word  :  "  The  inquiry  at  the  time  appears  to  me  to  super- 
sede authoritatively  all  later  conjectures."  As  might  be 
expected,  on  reaching  the  point  fixed  for  the  discussion, 
our  author  totally  fails  to  redeem  his  pledge,  and  falls  back 
on  contemporary  opinion  and  this  astounding  note  :  "  That 
some  casket  was  discovered  cannot  be  denied  by  the  most 
sanguine  defender  of  the  Queen."  Further,  instead  of  a 
straightforward  "  discussion,"  Mr.  Froude  keeps  up  a  des- 
ultory muttering  in  occasional  notes,  avowing  his  belief  in 
the  casket.  "  One  of  the  letters,"  he  says,  "  could  have 
been  invented  only  by  a  genius  equal  to  that  of  Shake- 
speare." We  are  not  told  which  is  that  letter,  nor  can 
we  understand  the  precise  signification  "  here  attached  to 


THE  CASKKT-LETTERS. 


211 


"  invention."  If  beauty  of  diction  is  meant,  we  must  differ ; 
for,  although  tlie  two  probably  genuine  letters  of  Mary 
Stuart  among  the  eight  are  —  like  everything  from  her 
pen  —  admirable  in  feeling  and  in  style,  still  the  genius 
of  a  Shakespeare  would  not  be  required  to  produce  them. 
If  he  mean  invention  in  the  sense  of  imitation  or  the 
talent  of  counterfeiting,  we  must  say  that  it  is  ability  of  a 
very  low  order.  The  history  of  literature  abounds  in  suc- 
cessful imitation  of  even  classic  writers  by  men  of  very  in- 
ferior talent,  and  Shakespeare's  name  naturally  recalls  the 
history  of  the  half-educated  boy,  an  attorney's  clerk,^  who 
for  nearly  two  years  imposed  upon  the  literati  of  England 
with  Shakespeare  prose,  poetry,  sonnet,  and  tragedy,  all 
of  his  own  manufacture. 

We  have  long  been  of  the  opinion  that  attention  has 
not  been  sufficiently  drawn  to  the  external  history  of  these 
famous  casket- letters.  This  portion  of  its  history  should 
alone  be  sufficient  to  consign  the  plated  cheat  to  oblivion 
as  the  most  impudent  and  flimsy  of  impostors,  and  is  so 
clear  as  to  render  superfluous  any  argument  on  the  inter- 
nal evidence,  which  is,  if  possible,  yet  more  overwhelming. 
The  story  of  Mary's  accusers  is  that,  four  days  after  the 
flight  at  Carberry,  Both  well  sent  his  retainer  Dalgleish  to 
Edinburgh  Castle  to  obtain  from  Sir  James  Balfour  (in  com- 
mand) a  certain  silver  casket,  his  (Bothwell's)  property ; 
that  Balfour  gave  the  casket  to  Dalgleish,  notifying  the 
confederate  lords  "  underhand,"  who  intercepted  Dalgleish 
June  20,  1567,  and  took  the  casket,  in  which  they  claim  to 
have  found  eight  letters,  written  by  the  Queen  to  Bothwell, 
several  contracts,  sonnets,  and  bonds.  Now,  those  who 
choose  are  at  liberty  to  believe  that  Dalgleish,  well  known 
as  a  follower  of  Bothwell,  was  allowed  to  pass  through 
more  than  four  hundred  armed  enemies  and  sentinels  to 
reach  the  castle ;  that  Balfour,  an  open  enemy  of  Bothwell, 
an  acute  lawyer,  an  unprincipled  man  ("  the  most  corrupt 
1  William  Heniy  Ireland. 


212 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


m:in  in  Scotland,"  says  Robertson),  than  whom  no  clerk  in 
the  kingdom  could  better  appreciate  the  importance  of  such 
papers,  gave  them  up  to  a  messenger  without  receipt  or  ac- 
knowledgment of  any  description,  thus  running  the  risk  of 
their  loss  or  destruction  by  Dalgleish,  or  his  escape  with 
them,^  and  thus  placing  himself  and  all  his  confederates  at 
Bothwell's  mercy.  They  are,  further,  free  to  believe  that 
such  a  man  as  Balfour  would  have  had  the  slightest  hesita- 
tion in  appropriating  the  papers ;  for  he  is  supposed  to 
have  already  broken  open  the  casket,  inasmuch  as  it  is 
claimed  that  he  knew  what  were  its  contents  before  deliv- 
ering it  to  Dalgleish.  But  let  us  accept  the  story.  What 
then  ?  Arrested  June  20th,  not  a  word  is  said  by  Morton  of 
the  casket  at  the  meeting  of  the  Privy  Council  on  the  next 
day,  June  21st,  and  Dalgleish  was  interrogated  June  26th. 
His  examination  and  replies  are  preserved,  and  contain  not 
a  solitary  word  concerning  the  casket,  or  letters  or  papers 
of  any  description  found  upon  him  as  alleged.  The  ex- 
amination took  place  before  the  Privy  Council.  Neither 
then  nor  at  any  other  time  did  he  make  any  statement  con- 
cerning it.  He  was  executed  January  3,  1568,  and  his 
name  was  never  ynentioned  in  connection  with  the  casket  story 
until  Jong  after  lie  was  dead.  None  of  the  servants  of  Mor- 
ton who  arrested  him  were  examined.  It  may  be  said,  the 
Privy  Council  may  not  have  been  aware  of  the  finding 
of  the  casket.  But  BaHbur,  who  gave  it  to  Dalgleish, 
and  Morton,  in  whose  hands  the  casket  is  claimed  then  to 
have  been,  were  both  present  at  the  examination,  Morton 
as  a  member  of  the  Council.^    It  will  be  borne  in  mind 

1  "  And  the  man  who  had  suffered  the  bird  to  fly  out  of  his  hand  be- 
cause he  was  confident  he  could  catch  it  again,  would  have  been  considered 
by  Morton  and  his  rebel  brethren  as  a  fool  and  an  idiot  for  the  act."  Whii- 
aher,  vol.  i.  p.  202. 

2  It  is  important  to  bear  in  mind,  that  this  same  Privy  Council,  on  that 
very  26th  June,  issued  a  proclamation  offering  a  reward  of  1,000  crowns 
for  the  arrest  of  Bothwcll,  guilty  of  the  murder  of  Darnley,  and  of  having 
"  traitorously  ravished  the  Queen."    But  the  sole  object  of  three  of  the 


THE  CASKET-LETTERS. 


213 


that  the  casket-letters  were  produced  as  the  letters  of  the 
Queen  to  Bothwell.  But  they  were  all  undated^  undirected, 
unsealed,  and  unsubscribed,  and  might  as  well  have  been 
written  to  anybody  as  well  as  to  Bothwell.  Are  we  to  be 
told  that  the  most  astute  lawyer  in  all  Scotland  could  not 
see  the  vital  necessity  of  tracing,  by  evidence,  these  letters 
to  Bothwell's  possession  —  letters  which  would  prove  their 
writer  guilty  of  adultery  and  murder?  With  the  testimony 
of  Balfour  and  Dalgleish,  Bothwell's  ownership  of  the 
papers  is  clear.  Yet  Balfour  not  only  declined  to.  examine 
Dalgleish,  but  did  not  even  proffer  his  own  poor  testimony. 
No  curiosity  concerning  this  capital  point  in  their  case  ap- 
pears to  have  been  manifested  by  those  interested,  and  we 
hear  not  a  word  from  them  on  the  subject  until  months 
after  the  death  of  the  only  person  whose  testimony  could 
have  helped  them.  On  the  scaffold  Dalgleish  asserted  the 
innocence  of  INIary,  charging  Murray  and  Morton  as  the 
authors  of  the  murder. 

But  how  is  it  possible  that  Morton  and  Balfour  should 
have  neglected  so  essential  a  precaution  as  that  of  taking 
Dalgleish's  testimony  as  to  the  casket  ?  The  answer  is 
very  plain.  Balfour  never  received  such  a  casket  from 
Bothwell ;  he  delivered  no  casket  to  Dalgleish  ;  and,  finally, 
the  so-called  casket- letters  were  not  then  (June  20,  1567) 
in  existence.  The  first  public  announcement  as  to  these 
letters  is  in  the  famous  Act  of  Council,  December  4, 1567, 
an  Act  signed  by  Morton,  Maitland,  and  Balfour,  all  ac- 
complices in  the  murder. 

This  Act  charges  that  their  seizure  of  the  Queen's  per- 
son on  the  loth  of  June,  and  her  imprisonment  in  Loch- 
leven,  and  "  all  other  doings  inventit,  spokin,  writtin  or 
donne  by  them  or  onny  of  them,  touching  the  said  queene, 
her  person,"  from  the  10th  day  of  February  until  the  date 

eight  casket-letters,  -which  Morton  and  Balfour  claim  then  to  have  in  their 
hands,  was  to  prove  just  the  contrarj',  —  that  the  Queen  herself  arranged 
the  '  carrying  off." 
1  Except  one,  "this  Saturday  morning." 


214 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


of  the  Act,  were  in  consequence  of  these,  ^'  her  pi-evie  letters 
written  and  suhscribit  with  her  aivin  hand,  and  sent  by  her 
to  James,  Earl  of  Bothwell."  Notice  the  date  of  this  Act, 
December,  1567.  It  was  not  until  the  next  year  that  the 
story  of  the  seizure  of  the  silver  casket  was  announced. 
In  the  multiplicity  of  their  combinations  these  men  had 
probably  lost  sight  of  the  exact  statements  of  the  Decem- 
ber Act,  and  thus,  by  their  own  declarations,  proclaimed 
to  the  world  that  they  rose  in  insurrection  on  the  10th  of 
June,  arrayed  themselves  in  arms  against  her  at  Carberry 
Hill,  June  15th,  and  imprisoned  her  on  the  16th,  luholly 
and  solely  hy  reason  of  evidence  of  her  guilt  which  fell  into 
their  hands  by  the  capture  of  Dalgleish  on  the  20th  of  June, 
in  the  same  year.  Not  a  word  of  the  casket,  nor  of  stan- 
zas, sonnets,  contracts,  and  bonds.  This  is  fatal.  Laing, 
the  acutest  of  the  forgery  advocates,  makes  an  effort  to 
show  that  the  term  "  previe  letters  "  may  also  be  taken  to 
include  other  papers ;  but  "  he  fails  to  show,"  remarks  Mr. 
Hosack,  that  "  either  in  Scotch  or  in  any  other  language, 
the  term  '  previe  letters  '  ever  meant  anything  except  pri- 
vate letters  and  epistles."  Thus,  the  letters  declared,  De- 
cember 4,  1567,  to  be  subscribed  vnth  her  own  hand,  were 
afterward  claimed  to  have  been  discovered  six  months  be- 
fore, without  any  sic/nature  ivhatever.  The  explanation  is, 
that  by  the  4th  of  December  the  forgery  plot  was  framed, 
and  letters  were  to  be  produced  signed  by  the  Queen.  Now, 
forgery  was  no  new  thing  to  these  gentlemen.  Murray 
produced  forged  papers  pretended  to  have  been  found  on 
the  Earl  of  Huntly,  and  with  them  imposed  upon  Mary. 
They  forged  a  letter  from  Mary  to  Bothwell,  which  was, 
they  claim,  shown  Kirkaldy  as  the  excuse  for  their  brutal 
treatment  of  the  Queen  on  the  15th  of  June.  This  letter, 
of  course,  instantly  disappeared,  never  again  to  be  seen. 

But  these  casket-letters  might  have  to  be  publicly  pro- 
duced and  submitted  to  some  sort  of  scrutiny.  This  made 
forgery  of  the  royal  signature  a  serious  piece  of  business, 


THE  CASKET-LETTERS. 


215 


and  the  man  was  not  found  who  dared  risk  it,  the  more  so 
as  he  would  know  he  could  not  trust  his  own  confederates, 
all  scoundrels  like  himself.  Hence  the  sudden  right-about- 
face  made  by  the  conspirators  ;  for  their  Act  of  Parlia- 
ment, passed  a  few  days  after  the  Act  of  Council,  describes 
the  letters,  not  as  signed,  but  as  "  hailly  written  with*  her 
awin  hand,"  and  in  that  shape,  that  is,  unsigned,  they  were 
produced  at  Westminster.  Notice  that  neither  before  the 
Council  nor  before  the  Parliament  in  question  were  these 
letters  produced,  and  they  ivere  never  shown  in  Scotland, 
From  the  20th  of. June  to  the  4th  of  December  not  a 
word  of  public  announcement  is  said  by  the  lords  in  allu- 
sion to  these  papers,  nor  is  there  the  slightest  trace  of 
them  in  their  own  minutes  of  the  Privy  Council.^  Mel- 
ville, the  confidential  envoy  of  the  lords,  is  sent  in  August 
to  meet  Murray  on  his  return,  but  has  not  a  word  to  say  con- 
cerning them.  So  far  from  it,  he  more  than  intimates  in  his 
"  Memoirs,"  written  years  afterward,  that  the  casket-letters 
were  forgeries.  Finally,  Drury,  the  assured  friend  of  the 
rebels,  and  in  daily  receipt  of  intelligence  from  them  directly, 
and  indirectly  from  his  spies,  makes  no  allusion  to  them. 

Another  argument.  It  is  assumed  that  Bothwell,  in  his 
hurried  flight,  took  no  papers  with  him.  His  flight  from 
Scotland  was  not  hurried.  He  might  have  been  pursued 
after  Carberry  or  taken  at  Dunbar.  Only  after  the  de- 
struction of  the  Craigmillar  bond,  by  which  they  were  com- 
promised, did  the  lords  move  against  him,  and  even  then, 
by  proclaiming  a  reward  for  his  apprehension,  gave  him 

1  Mr.  Hosack,  whose  historical  researches  have  been  persevering  and 
thorough,  with  results  brilliant  for  his  reputation  and  most  important  to 
the  interests  of  historical  truth,  has  discovered  that  in  the  original  record 
of  the  proceedings  of  Murray's  Privy  Council,  still  preserved  in  the  Reg- 
ister House,  Edinburgh,  no  trace  of  the  important  Act  of  Council  of  De- 
cember 4th,  1567  is  to  be  found.  "There  is  but  one  entry  in  the  record  of 
December  4,  1567,  and  that  relates  to  a  totally  different  subject."  The  ex- 
planation is  that  the  Act  was  sent  to  Cecil,  and  that  the  Regent  had  his 
own  reasoi.s  for  not  putting  it  on  record. 


216 


MAEY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


ample  warning  to  save  himself.  Bothwell  was  arrested 
on  the  coast  of  Norway  as  a  pirate,  and,  to  prove  who  he 
was,  had  taken  out  of  the  hold  of  his  vessel,  where  he 
had  it  concealed,  a  portfolio  full  of  private  letters  and 
important  documents.  This  portfolio  or  desk  was  fastened 
with  several  locks,  the  keys  of  which  were  obtained  from 
one  of  his  servants.  The  magistrates  of  Bergen  found  in 
it  numerous  MS.  letters  and  papers,  and  a  letter  from  Mary 
Stuart,  "  not  of  affection,  but  one  of  complaint,  lamenting 
her  hard  lot,"  which  produced  a  very  unfavorable  impres- 
sion concerning  Bothwell,  who  was  retained  a  prisoner. 
Finally,  if  Mary  Stuart  had  ever  written  any  such  letters 
to  Bothwell  "  of  infinite  importance  to  him,"  as  Mr.  Froude 
truly  says,  would  Bothwell  have  parted  with  them  ?  If  he 
consented  to  part  with  them,  would  he  have  left  them  at 
the  mercy  of  such  a  man  as  Balfour  ?  And  granting 
even  that,  can  it  be  believed  that  James  Balfour,  of  all 
men  in  Scotland,  would  have  loosened  his  grip  upon  them, 
and  delivered  them,  gratuitously,  to  the  servant  of  an  ab- 
sconding felon  ?  Believe  it  who  may  !  Balfour  was  not  a 
man  to  give  something  for  nothing.  He  was  bought  over 
to  join  the  confederates  before  Carberry,  he  was  well  paid 
for  the  "  green  velvet  desk  "  transaction,  and  Murray  after- 
wards gave  him  £5,000  in  money,  Pittenweem  priory  and 
another  valuable  tract  of  church  land,  and  an  annuity  for 
his  son. 

On  the  ]j6th  of  September,  1568,  Morton  delivers  the 
casket  to  Murray,  against  a  receipt  certifying  that  Morton 
had  kept  the  casket,  "faithfully  (since  June  20,  1567), 
without  in  anything  changing,  increasing,  or  diminishing  its 
contents."  Is  this  the  lano^uasje  of  an  honest  transaction  ? 
How  did  Murray  know  whereof  he  certifies  ?  No  matter  ! 
]Morton's  word  is  just  as  good  as  Murray's.  Thus,  the 
casket  should  contain  on  the  20th  of  June  all  that  Murray 
afterward  produced  as  its  contents  at  Westminster.  Let 
us  apply  a  test.    On  the  very  day  Dalgleish  was  interro- 


THE  CASKET-LETTERS. 


217 


gated,  the  Privy  Council  ordered  tlie  arrest  of  Bothwell 
for  the  crimes  of  the  murder  of  Darnley,  and  for  having 
"  traitorously  ravished  the  Queen."  And  yet,  of  the  eight 
casket-letters,  three  should  prove  the  Queen's  consent  to 
Bothwell's  carrying  her  off.^ 

Mr.  Froude  says  it  cannot  be  denied  that  some  casket 
was  discovered.  Certainly  not.  But  when  and  Avhere  ? 
Mr.  P^roude  has  no  testimony  on  this  point  but  the  asser- 
tions of  Morton,  Murray,  and  himself  We  freely  grant 
that  "  some  casket  was  discovered."  We  admit,  moreover, 
that  it  was  the  very  casket  produced  by  Murray  at  West- 
minster —  a  small  silver-gilt  casket  belonging  to  Mary 
Stuart,  given  her  by  Francis,  her  first  husband.  It  was 
among  Mary's  effects  at  Holyrood  when  they  were  plun- 
dered by  Murray  and  his  friends,  and  when,  as  Mr.  Froude 
tells  us,  the  Queen's  chapel  was  "  purged  of  its  Catholic 
ornaments." 

We  have  a  theory  that  Mr.  Froude  does  not  himself  be- 
lieve that  a  casket  was  found  on  Dalgleish,  as  the  story 
runs.  And  our  reason  for  holding  it  is  that  he  bases  his 
strongest  statements  concerninor  it  on  facts  which  are  in- 
capable  of  demonstration  or  historical  proof.  He  draws  a 
fancy  sketch  (ix.  39)  of  Bothwell  solus,  who,  like  a  villain 
in  a  melodrama,  is  seen  to  "  put  the  bond  away  in  a  casket, 
together  with  his  remaining  treasures  of  the  same  kind,  in 
case  they  might  be  useful  to  him  in  the  future  "  (how  our 
historian  reads  the  villain's  thoughts  !)  —  among  the  rest, 
the  fatal  letter  which  the  Queen  had  written  to  him  from 

1  No  schedule  of  the  contents  of  the  casket  was  set  forth  in  the  Act  of 
Council  or  in  the  Act  of  Parliament.  From  first  to  last  no  list  of  the  con- 
tents was  ever  certified.  In  the  above  two  Acts  no  mention  was  made  of  con- 
tracts of  marriage  or  sonnets,  nor  of  the  casket  itself.  Murray  first  reports 
the  whole  as  three  sheets  of  paper  (tres  pUegos  de  papel)^  and  3''et  when  the 
papers  of  the  casket  as  last  presented  came  to  be  published,  they  filled  more 
than  forty  pages  of  printed  quarto.'-^  Bishop  Leslie  might  well  twit  the 
lords  with  their  ^'■juggling  box.'^ 

2  Anderson's  Collection, 


218 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


Glasgow,  etc.  How  can  the  reader  have  any  doubt  after 
this  ?  Does  he  not  here  see  the  casket  —  almost  touch 
it? 

Here  is  another  casket  appearance  (ix.  118)  :  — 

"  The  Earl  of  Both  well,  on  leaving  Edinburgh  for  the  Border, 
had  left  in  Balfour's  hands  the  celebrated  casket  which  contained 
the  Queen's  letters  to  himself,  some  love  sonnets,  the  bond  signed 
at  Seton  before  his  trial,  and  one  other,  prohahly  that  which  was 
drawn  at  Craigmillar" 

Deep,  sir,  deep  !  The  Craigmillar  bond  really  was  in 
Balfour's  hands,  and  if  Mr.  Froude  can  but  manage  to  get 
it  into  the  casket,  then  also  is  the  cashet  in  Balfour's  hands. 
Not  without  reason  has  Mr.  Froude  been  styled  the  Robert 
Houdin  of  modern  Euglish  literature.  But  he  has  more 
proof  at  the  next  page  :  — 

"  They  (Maitland  and  the  other  lords)  might  have  experienced, 
too,  some  fear  as  well  as  some  compunction  if,  rt.9  Lord  Herries 
said,  the  casket  contained  the  Craigmillar  bond,  to  which  their  names 
remained  affixed." 

Mr.  Fronde's  probably  and  if  are  mere  grimace.  He 
knows  perfectly  well  that  the  Craigmillar  bond  never  had 
any  connection  with  the  casket,  knows  when  and  where  it 
was  found,  how  it  was  destroyed,  and  who  destroyed  it. 
Thus  it  was  :  When  the  other  murderers  of  Darnley  con- 
federated against  Bothwell,  the  papers  of  the  latter  were 
in  the  castle  at  Edinburgh.  Word  was  sent  Balfour  that, 
if  he  did  not  join  them,  he  should  be  denounced  with 
Bothwell  as  the  murderer  of  Darnley.  Balfour  acceded, 
protecting  himself  with  the  perennial  "bond  "  of  that  day, 
to  which  he  required  the  personal  guarantee  of  Kirkaldy 
of  Grange  —  "  in  case  the  nobility  might  alter  upon  him." 
He  knew  they  were  all  as  unprincipled  as  himself,  but  he 
had  faitli  in  the  soldier's  word.  Thus  made  safe,  he  broke 
open  a  green  velvet  desk  in  which  Bothwell  kept  his  valu- 
able papers,  and  among  them  found  the  Craigmillar  bond. 


CRAIGMILLAR  BOND. 


219 


The  testimony  on  this  point  is  full  and  indisputable.  In 
1580,  Morton  was  tried  and  found  guilty  as  aiding  in  the 
murder  of  Darnley.  Balfour  was  a  witness  in  the  case. 
Sir  Francis  Walsingham  wrote  (February  3,  1580)  :  — 

"  Tlie  said  Sir  James  Balfour  found  in  a  green  velvet  desk,  late 
the  Earl  of  Bothwell's,  and  saw  and  had  in  his  hands,  the  jDrin- 
cipal  bond  of  the  conspirators  in  that  murder,  and  can  best  de- 
clare and  witness  who  were  the  authors  and  executors  of  the 
same."     {Cotton  Library,  Caligula  6.) 

And  here  is  the  testimony  of  Randolph,  who  writes  to 
Cecil,  October  15,  1570  :  — 

"  To  name  such  as  are  yet  here  living,  most  notoriously  known  to 
have  been  chief  consentors  to  the  ting's  death,  I  mind  not.  Only  I 
will  say  that  the  universal  bruit  comes  upon  three  or  four  persons, 
which  subscribed  into  a  bond,  promising  to  concur  and  assist 
each  other  in  doing  the  same.  This  bond  was  kept  in  the  castle, 
in  a  little  coffer  or  desk  covered  with  green,  and,  after  the  appre- 
hension of  the  Scottish  Queen  at  Carberry  Hill,  was  taken  out  of 
the  place  where  it  lay  by  the  Laird  of  Liddington,  in  presence  of 
Mr.  James  Balfour,  then  clerk  of  the  register  and  keeper  of  the 
keys  where  the  registers  are."  (Tytler,  vol.  vii.  p.  346,  and  MS. 
in  State  Paper  Office.) 

And  with  this  crushing  statement  before  hin),  Mr.  Froude 
yet  seeks  to  persuade  his  reader  that  the  Craigmillar  bond 
was  in  the  silver  casket!  "  J/,  as  Lord  Herries  said,  the 
casket  contained  the  Craigmillar  bond  ?  "  suggests  our  his- 
torian, who  is  well  advised  that  Lord  Herries  said  nothing 
of  the  kind.  Lord  Herries,  on  the  contrary,  states  that 
Balfour  did  not  find  any  alleged  letters  of  the  Queen 
among  Bothwell's  effects  in  the  castle,  but  that  he  did  find 
the  bond  for  the  Darnley  murder ;  and  he  adds  that,  if 
the  Queen's  letters  had  been  genuine,  her  enemies  would 
only  have  been  too  glad  of  such  an  opportunity  to  try  and 
condemn  her. 

Here  (ix.  110)  follows  the  statement  that  "uncertain 
what  to  do,"  the  lords  "sent  one  of  their  number  in  haste  to 


220 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


Paris  to  the  Earl  of  Murray,  to  inform  him  of  the  discovery 
of  the  letters,  and  to  entreat  him  to  hurry  back  immedi- 
ately." Innocent  reader  finds  in  this  passage  contemporary 
evidence  of  the  discovery  of  the  casket-letters,  and  so  it 
would  be  but  for  the  fact  that  Mr.  Froude  makes  the  state- 
ment without  authority,  the  passage  belonging  not  to  history 
but  to  romance.  Close  on  the  heels  of  this  story  we  have  an- 
other. "  The  casket-letter  proofs,"  runs  the  passage  in  dic- 
tion of  "  yellow  cover  "  novel,  "  laid  out  in  deadly  clearness, 
acted  on  the  heated  passions  of  the  lords  like  oil  on  fire." 
(ix.  119.)  What  could  there  possibly  be  in  "the  casket- 
letter  proofs "  at  all  new  or  surprising  to  them  ?  These 
proofs  were  as  to  the  Queen's  adultery,  the  murder  of  the 
King,  and  the  Queen's  marriage  with  Bothwell.  Through 
two  volumes  it  has  been  incessantly  dinned  in  our  ears  that 
the  adultery  was  long  a  matter  of  public  scandal; we  know 
that  these  lords  were  at  least  her  accomplices,  if  she  was 
guilty  of  the  murder;  and  that  by  the  Ainslie  bond  they  ap- 
proved if  they  did  not  force  her  marriage  with  Bothwell. 
This  is  very  good,  but  not  half  so  imaginative  as  the  por- 
trayal of  Sir  James  Balfour  "furious  at  having  been  taken 
in  by  Bothwell  and  the  Queen  !  "  Think  of  the  virtuous 
indignation  of  Robert  Macaire  ! 

And  yet,  in  the  face  of  the  testimony,  Mr.  Froude  has 
the  nerve  to  repeat  his  poor  invention  at  page  200,  vol.  ix. : 
"  If,  as  there  is  reason  to  believe,  the  Craigmillar  bond  was 
in  the  casket  also,"  etc.  Then  follow  two  pages  which  we 
commend  to  the  serious  attention  of  any  admirer  of  Mr. 
Froude  who  claims  the  possession  of  moral  principles. 

For  the  advocates  of  the  genuineness  of  the  casket-let- 
ters the  suspicious  presence  of  the  Scotch  idiom  in  the 
French  version  of  the  Glasgow  letters  presents  an  insur- 
mountable difficulty.  In  the  comparative  obscurity  of  a  note 
(ix.  62)  Mr.  Froude  thus  seeks,  quietly  and  in  the  fewest 
possible  words,  to  glide  out  of  it :  "  The  solitary  "  —  {soli- 
tary ?)  —  "  The  solitary  critical  objection  to  the  genuine- 


THE  CASKET-LETTERS. 


221 


ness  of  the  letters  has  been  that  although  Mary  Stuart  cor- 
responded with  Both  well  in  French,  the  French  version 
which  was  published  by  Buchanan  contained  Scotch  idioms 
and  must  have  been  translated  from  Scotch.  It  was  natu- 
rally conjectured  in  reply  that  the  originals  were  out  of 
Buchanan's  reach,  and  that  his  French  and  Latin  versions 
of  the  letters  were  retranslations  from  the  Scotch  transla- 
tion which  was  made  when  they  were  first  discovered.  It 
is  now  certain  that  this  was  the  truth." 

But  we  must  decline  to  accept  Mr.  Froude's  "  naturally 
conjectured  "  and  "  now  certain,"  as  having  any  historical 
value.  The  facts  are  that  Buchanan  assisted  in  showing^ 
the  original  papers  to  Elizabeth's  Commissioners  in  1568. 
In  1571,  he  published  the  Latin  version  (three  letters)  and 
Scotch  version,  and  in  1572  the  French  version.  Mean- 
time the  originals  were  redelivered  to  Morton  in  January, 
1571,  and  remained  in  his  possession  until  he  went  to  the 
scaffold  for  Darnley's  murder  ten  years  afterward.  Bu- 
chanan's "  Detection,"  ^  in  which  the  letters  appeared,  was 
written  under  supervision  and  by  order  of  the  men  who 
had  the  letters  in  their  possession,  the  materials  for  the 
work  being  furnished  by  them.^ 

Thus  then  the  matter  stands.  Buchanan,  who  was  per- 
fectly familiar  with  the  identical  casket-letters  presented  by 
Murray,  is  employed  by  those  holding  them  in  their  pos- 
session to  translate  and  publish  them  to  the  world,  and  they 
were  thus,  very  clearly,  not  "out  of  Buchanan's  reach." 
He  does  so.    They  are  published  in  London,  where  were 

1  See  Appendix  No.  9. 

2  Cecil  himself  published  the  fact  that,  "  The  Book  itself  is  written  in 
Latin  by  a  learned  man  of  Scotland,  Mr.  George  Buchanan,  one  privy  to 
the  proceedings  of  the  Lords  of  the  King's  Secret  Council  there,  well  able 
to  understand  and  disclose  the  truth,  having  easy  access  to  all  the  records  of 
that  country  that  might  help  him.  Besides  that  the  Book  was  written  by 
him,  not  as  of  himself,  nor  in  his  own  name,  but  according  to  the  instruc- 
tions to  him  given  by  common  conference  of  the  Lords  of  the  Privy  Coun- 
cil of  Scotland;  by  him  only  for  his  learning  penned,  but  by  them  the 
matter  ministered." 


222 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


retained  the  exact  copies  of  them  as  presented  by  Murray 
and  his  associates  to  Cecil  and  the  Commission,  and  by 
which  a  spurious  copy  must  have  been  immediately  de- 
tected. But  they  were  accepted  as  copies  of  the  French 
letters  as  originally  presented,  and  the  assent  to  their 
authenticity  was  universal.  For  two  hundred  years  this 
general  assent  was  acquiesced  in  by  writers  on  both  sides, 
until  the  historians  Hume  and  Robertson,  overwhelmed  by 
the  evidence  that  the  French  of  the  disputed  letters  was  a 
translation  from  the  Scotch,  ventured  the  suggestion  that 
the  true  original  French  version  had  been  lost.  This  eva- 
sive and  desperate  subterfuge  is  Mr.  Fronde's  "  it  was 
naturally  conjectured  ;  "  but  there  is  no  escape  from  the 
conclusion  that  the  French  letters  we  now  have  are,  in 
their  contents,  the  identical  letters  produced  by  Murray. 


CHAPTER  XIX. 


THE    HIGHEST  PROOF. 

*'  It  is  not  for  the  historian  to  balance  advantages.  His  duty  is  with  the 
facts."  —  Fkoude's  History  of  Eiujlandj  i.  92. 

These  casket-letters  weigh  heavily  on  Mr.  Fronde's 
pages.  And  well  they  may.  He  has  shown  them  to  us 
when  Bothwell  put  them  in  the  casket,  telling  us  precisely 
what  reflections  passed  through  the  villain's  mind  at  the 
moment ;  we  have  again  seen  them  in  Sir  James  Balfour's 
possession,  "  if  the  Craigmillar  bond  "  was  with  them  ;  we 
see  them  again  "  laid  out  in  deadly  clearness,"  and  acting 
"  on  the  heated  passions  of  the  lords  like  oil  on  fire."  We 
see  them  at  numerous  points  of  Mr.  Fronde's  pages ;  but 
nowhere  in  these  pages  can  we  find  a  man  in  all  Scotland 
who  even  long  months  afterwards  ever  pretended  to  have 
laid  eyes  upon  them.  All  this  is  discouraging  ;  but  our  his- 
torian has  a  masterly  device  in  reserve,  namely,  to  show 
that  Mary  Stuart  herself  admitted  the  existence  of  the  casket- 
letters  in  August,  1567  (when  they  were  not  yet  forged,  and 
before  the  conspirators  had  even  determined  upon  the  shape 
in  which  to  put  them).  Truly  a  dazzling  tour  de  force. 
Give  it  your  attention.  We  have  (ix.  159)  a  recital  of  the 
first  interview  in  Lochleven  prison  between  the  Queen  of 
Scots  and  Murray.  This  recital  is  based  on  a  letter  to 
Elizabeth  from  Throckmorton,  who  repeats  Murray's  ac- 
count of  the  interview,  and  it  asserts  the  admission  by 
Mary  Stuart  of  the  existence  of  the  casket-letters,  —  this, 
too,  at  a  time  when,  as  we  shall  show,  they  had  not  yet  been 
fabricated,  and  when  the  precise  form  in  which  they  should 
be  presented  had  not  yet-  been  devised  by  the  forgers.  In 


224 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


the  opening  of  this  effort,  our  historian  is  bold,  but  his 
wa7'p  is  so  strong  as  to  excite  suspicion.  Representing 
Tlirockniorton  as  his  authority,  he  says :  The  brother 
and  sister  met  without  the  presence  of  witnesses."  "  The 
Queen  received  Murray  with  great  passion  and  weeping." 
But  Throckmorton  begins  his  letter  (August  20,  1567) 
thus : — 

"  It  may  please  your  Majesty,  at  the  Earles  of  Moray,  Athole 
and  Morton's  arrival  at  Lochleven,  they  went  immediately  to  the 
Queen,  who  had  conference  ivith  them  altogether ;  notwithstanding 
the  Queen  broke  forth  into  great  passion  and  weeping,  retiring 
the  Earle  of  Moray  apart,  who  had  with  her  long  talk  in  the 
hearing  of  no  person." 

Mr.  Froude  continues:  "He  sat  with  her  for  several 
hours,  but  was  cold  and  reserved.  She  was  unable  to  infer 
from  his  words  either  the  ill  which  he  had  conceived  of 
her  or  meant  towards  her." 

But  this  is  far  from  conveying  what  Throckmorton 
really  wrote.^ 

Then  the  reader  is  told  —  with  a  burst  of  rhetoric,  a  line 
of  poetry,  and  foul  abuse  of  the  poor  prisoner  —  how  Mary 
Stuart  is  loved  by  this  man  Murray,  "  who  had  no  guilt  upon 
his  own  heart."  "  He  behaved  himself  rather  like  a 
ghostly  father  unto  her  than  like  a  councilor  !  "  And  this 
in  quotation  marks,  as  though  expressing  Throckmorton's 
opinion.  But  Throckmorton  said  no  such  thing.  He  wrote : 
1  do  hear  thai  he  behaved  himself,''  etc.  And  he  heard  it 
from  excellent  authority  —  Murray  himself. 

Mr.  Froude  here  witheringly  denounces  historians  who 
absurdly  pretend  to  a  knowledge  of  the  secret  impulses 
and  motives  of  their  historical  characters,  saying  :  "  It  has 
pleased  the  apologists  of  the  Queen  of  Scots  to  pretend  an 
entire  acquaintance  with  Murray's  motives." 

1  "  That  talk,  as  I  do  learn  (which  continued  two  hours  until  supper  time), 
was  nothing  pleasant  to  the  Queen,  and  chiefly  for  that  the  Earl  of  Moray- 
talked  nothing  so  frankly  with  her  as  she  desired,  but  used  covert  speech 
and  such  as  she  judged  he  would  not  discover  neither  the  good  nor  the  ill 
he  had  conceived  of  her,  nor  meant  unto  her." 


THE  INVENTIVE  POWER.  225 

But  if  we  have  understood  the  historians  who  have  de- 
scribed this  interview,. they  do  not  so  nnich  judge  Murray's 
motives  as  comment  upon  his  acts.^  The  Protestant  Bishop 
Keith,  who  can  Iiardly  be  counted  among  apohjgists,"  says, 
"  Murray's  craft  shines  conspicuous  here.  He  first  puts  the 
Queen  into  the  terror  of  death,  and  dexterously  manages 
by  a  change  of  demeanor  to  make  her  suppose  she  has 
room  to  be  grateful  to  him."  The  Scotch  historian  Hosack 
comments  thus  :  — 

"  Nothing  can  exhibit  in  a  clearer  light  the  coarse  and  crafty 
nature  of  the  man.  First  to  terrify  his  sister  with  the  prospect 
of  immediate  death,  then  to  soothe  her  with  false  promises  of 
safety,  and  finally,  with  well-feigned  reluctance,  to  accept  the 
dignity  he  was  longing  to  grasp,  displayed  a  mixture  of  brutality 
and  cunning  of  which  he  alone  was  capable." 

The  Presbyterian  historian  Robertson  is  of  the  opinion 
that  "  Murray  discovered  in  this  interview  a  spirit  so  severe 
and  unrelenting — certainly  one  of  the  most  unjustifiable 
steps  in  his  conduct." 

"  Her  letters  had  betrayed  the  inmost  part  of  her  too  despe- 
rately for  denials  There  is  no  such  statement  in  Throck- 
morton's letter.  Idea,  words,  and  all  are  purely  the  coinage 
of  Mr.  Fronde's  brain. 

Again  :  — 

Throckmorton  writes :  —  Mr.  Froude  represents  him  as 

writing :  — 

"  They  began  where  they  left  "  He  had  forced  her  to  see 
over  night,  and  after  those  his    both  her   ignominy   and  her 

1  To  Mr.  Froude  the  most  interesting  comment  on  this  performance  of 
"  the  stainless  Murray  should  be  that  of  Monsieur  Mignet,  certaiiil}'  not 
an  apologist,  but,  like  himself,  a  defamer  of  Mary  Stuart.  "  After  having 
signed  her  abdication  tlirough  terror,  she  was  now  surprised  into  assenting 
to  it.  This  assent,  soon  to  be  repented  of,  the  cool  and  crafty  Murray  had 
obtained  from  her  by  alternately  exciting  hope  and  fear  in  her  troubled 
heart."  "  Le  froid  et  astucieux  Murray  I'avait  obtenu  d'elle  en  faisant 
succ^der  dans  son  cceur  trouble  I'espoir  et  la  crainte."  —  Mignet,  vol.  i.  p. 
369. 

15 


226 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


reprehensions,  lie  used  some  danger,  but  he  would  not  leave 
words  of  consolation  unto  her,  her  without  some  words  of  con- 
tending to  this  and  that  he  solation.  He  told  her  that  he 
would  assure  her  of  her  life,  would  assure  her  life,  and  if  pos- 
and,  as  much  as  .lay  in  him  the  sible  would  shield  her  reputation, 
preservation  of  her  honor."         and  prevent  the  publication  of  her 

letters" 

The  words  in  Italics  are  not  in  Throckmorton,  the  idea 
conveyed  by  Mr.  Froude  is  not  there,  nor  is  there  in  all  of 
Throckmorton's  letter  anything  to  warrant  Mr.  Froude's 
assertion.  It  is  pure  invention.  We  know  whereof  we 
do  affirm. 

There  need  be  no  question  of  conflict  of  reference  in 
this  matter.  Mr.  Froude  cites  "  Throckmorton  to  Elizabeth^ 
Aug.  20,  Keith"  and  by  that  authority  we  stand.^ 

There  is  further  garbling  and  more  patching  of  this  letter 
(particularly  in  the  attempt  to  bolster  it  with  what  Lady 
Lennox  said,  which  is  merely  what  Murray  said),  but  we  al- 
ready have  enough.  It  is  well,  however,  that  the  reader 
should  understand  that  Throckmorton's  account  of  this 
interview  is  from  what  was  related  to  him  by  Murray.  The 
crowning  ornament  of  Murray's  character  was  his  piety, 
and  we  are  surprised  that  Mr.  Froude  should  have  omitted 
a  beautifully  characteristic  trait  of  it  related  in  this  same 
letter  of  Throckmorton.  Murray  had  been  requested  to 
come  with  Lethington.  But  he  came  alone,  and  it  can  be 
well  understood  why  he  should  prefer  not  to  have  the  keen- 
witted Maitland  a  listener  to  his  version  of  the  interview 
with  Mary.  Again  Throckmorton  repeats  his  request  as  to 
Lethington,  whereupon,  "  The  Earle  of  Moray  answered. 
We  must  now  serve  God,  for  the  preacher  tarrieth  for  us,  and 
after  the  sermon  we  must  advise  of  a  time  to  confer  with 
you."  Not  only  was  he  pious,  but  Mr.  Froude  never  tires 
of  telling  us  that  his  "  noble  nature  had  no  taint  of  self  in 

1  See  Keith,  vol.  ii.  p.  734  el  seq.,  Edinburgh  edition,  printed  for  the 
Spotiswode  Society,  1845. 


NO  TAINT  OF  SELF. 


227 


it,"  and  represents  him  (ix.  134)  lately  refusing  rank,  pen- 
sion, and  power  from  Catherine  de  Medicis.  But  Mr. 
Froude  fails  to  see  the  Spanish  dispatches  detailing  Mur- 
ray's •*  gentle  hint  "  to  the  King  of  France,  which  brought 
him  a  present  of  plate  valued  at  3,000  crowns,  and  he  is 
even  blind  to  a  letter  of  Throckmorton  to  Elizabeth  (Au- 
gust 12),  which  relates  in  very  plain  English,  "  Your  Maj- 
esty is  advertised  of  the  present  my  Lord  of  Moray  had 
given  him  at  his  coming  forth  of  France,  which  was  valued 
at  1,500  crowns,  and  of  the  pension  brought  him  by  Lign- 
erolles  of  4,000  franks  yearly." 

Murray's  story  is  contradicted  by  all  we  know  of  the 
Queen.  She  did  not  throw  herself  into  his  arms  ;  and  Mel- 
ville says  that  "  from  that  moment  all  affection  was  forever 
broken  between  them."  Mary  did  not  ask  him  to  accept 
the  Regency.  She  states  that  she  dissuaded  him  from  it, 
and  then  it  was  that  "  he  threw  off  the  mask,  told  her  he 
had  already  taken  it,  and  it  was  too  late  to  draw  back." 
As  to  Balfour's  "  frank  confession,"  —  the  frank  confession 
of  one  described  by  John  Knox  as  "  blasphemous  Balfour," 
and  by  the  historian  Tytler  as  "  this  infamous  man,"  —  we 
should  first  like  to  know  something  more  of  the  Simancas 
MS.  referred  to  by  Mr.  Froude  in  that  connection.  There 
appears  to  be  such  "  fatal  necessity  of  mistake "  in  Mr. 
Fronde's  citations,  that  we  must  ask  to  be  excused  from 
accepting  any  of  them  without  preliminary  verification  of, 
first,  their  existence,  and,  secondly,  their  accuracy. 

To  return  to  the  casket-letters.  While  Mary  was  im- 
prisoned at  Lochleven,  Villeroy  and  Du  Croc,  the  two 
French  Ambassadors,  demanded  interviews  with  the  Queen, 
but  were  refused  by  the  lords.  A  week  later  the  English 
Ambassador  was  also  refused,  and  in  all  three  cases  every 
excuse  was  alleged  but  the  discovery  of  the  casket-letters. 
On  the  contrary,  the  lords  dwelt  upon  the  violences  and 
outrages  of  Bothwell  upon  the  Queen  —  accusing  Bothwell 
of  making  a  prisoner  of  the  Queen,  and  forcing  her  to 


228 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


marry  him,  —  things  distinctly  contradicted  by  the  casket- 
letters.  In  like  manner,  when  they  seized  the  Queen's  sil- 
ver, the  casket  was  not  urged  in  excuse.  July  24,  1567, 
Lindsay  sought  to  force  Mary's  abdication,^  and  to  obtain 
it  used  brutal  force.  Mr.  Froude  (ix.  141)  thinks  that  the 
story  that  "  Lindsay  clutched  her  arm  and  left  the  print 
of  his  gauntleted  hands  upon  the  flesh,  that,  having  imme- 
diate death  before  her  if  she  refused,  she  wrote  her  name," 
rests  on  faint  authority.  For  Mr.  Froude,  all  authority 
concerning  Mary  Stuart  is  faint  that  does  not  come  from 
her  enemies.^  If  the  casket-letters  had  really  existed,  the 
menace  to  use  them  would  have  brought  Mary's  signature 
without  trouble,  and  Lindsay's  brutality  might  have  been 
dispensed  with. 

The  force  of  this  objection  is  appreciated  by  the  histo- 
rian, hence  his  painfully  ingenious  piece  of  work  with 
Throckmorton's  letter  in  order  to  represent  Mary  as  yield- 
ing under  the  same  threat  from  Murray.  On  the  day  after 
Mary  was  terrified  into  signing  her  abdication,  we  hear 
the  very  first  hint  from  the  lords  as  to  her  "  letters."  The 
hint  was  given  to  Throckmorton ;  but  they  did  not  show 
him  the  casket-letters  for  the  very  best  of  reasons.  Throck- 
morton writes  to  Elizabeth  that  the  lords  mean  to  charge 
Mary  with  the  Darnley  murder,  "  whereof,  they  say,  they 
have  as  apparent  proof  against  her  as  may  be,  as  well  by 
the  testimony  of  her  own  handwriting,"  etc.  But  not  a 
word  of  Dalgleish  or  the  casket.  Their  story  was  not  yet 
fully  prepared. 

July  30,  1567.    Now  we  hear  of  the  three  sheets  of 

1  We  are  told  (ix.  126)  that  Mary  "  was  obstinate  only  in  her  love  for 
Bothwell."  Why  they  did  she  so  gladly  leave  him  at  Carberry  ?  If  she 
wanted  to  join  Bothwell  all  she  had  to  do  was  to  abdicate,  and  yet  she  re- 
fused abdication  at  every  risk,  and  only  signed  when  advised  that,  being 
obtained  by  force,  her  signature  was  of  no  value. 

2  Robertson,  who  certainly  is  not  her  advocate,  says:  "  Lord  Lindsay,  the 
fiercest  zealot  in  the  party,  executed  bis  commission  with  harshness  and 
brutality." 


INFANCY  OF  FORGERY. 


229 


paper  —  ires  pUegos  de  papel.  The  forgery  is  evidently  in 
its  infancy;  for,  when  the  casket  nltlniately  appeared,  it 
contained  a  mass  of  papers.  Murray  is  in  London.  Ac- 
cording to  Mr.  Fronde,  he  has  received  special  informa- 
tion ^  concerning  this  letter  of  three  sheets  of  paper  writ- 
ten by  the  Queen  to  Bbthwell,  for  as  such  he  describes  it 
to  De  Silva,  the  Spanish  Ambassador.  De  Silva's  report 
of  Murray's  statements  concerning  Mary's  letter  —  una  carta 
—  is  given  (ix.  119)  in  the  original  Spanish.  He  is  careful, 
however,  to  furnish  the  reader  no  translation  of  it,  hurries 
over  it  as  rapidly  as  possible,  and  abruptly  leaves  it  by 
plunging  into  some  matter  about  John  Knox. 

Two  traits  eminently  characteristic  of  our  historian's 
treatment  of  his  material  are  prominent  here.  He  always 
avoids  giving  the  English  version  of  a  paper  which  it  would 
be  dangerous  to  translate,  and  he  suddenly  drops  an  incon- 
venient subject  to  resume  it  subsequently  on  an  assumed 
basis.  In  this  case,  sixteen  pages  later,  he  coolly  refers  to 
the  De  Silva  report  as  "  an  accurate  description  "  of  the 
casket-letter.  The  anxiety  to  escape  intelligible  statement 
of  IMurray's  report  to  De  Silva  is  very  natural,  for  that  re- 
port is  one  of  the  most  fatal  blows  ever  dealt  the  silver 
casket  forgery.  Murray's  description  to  De  Silva  of  the 
letter  "  written  by  Mary  to  Bothwell "  is  that  of  a  letter 
totally  differing  in  its  essential  features  from  that  which 
was  afterwards  produced,  and  "  the  theory  that  the  letters 
were  forged  in  the  later  maturity  of  the  conspiracy  against 
the  Queen,"  so  far  from  "  falling  asunder  "  under  Murray's 

1  "  From  one  "  he  says,  "  who  had  seen  it  and  read  it"  — it  —  la  carta, 
one  letter.  De  Silva's  languap^e  is  "  y  que  lo  de  la  carta  lo  sabia  de  qn'w.n 
le  habia  visto  y  leydo,"  as  given  (ix.  120);  but  le  is  evidently  a  misprint 
for  la.  If,  as  asserted,  the  casket  and  letters  had  been  taken  with  Dalgleish 
six  weeks  before,  the  story  must  necessarily  have  been  repeated  in  that 
shape  and  in  no  other,  so  peculiar  and  so  striking  was  the  circumstance. 
But  no,  we  hear  of  neither  Dalgleish,  nor  casket,  nor  letters,  but  of  a  letter! 
It  may  be  remarked  here  that  the  Spanish  citations  throughout  these  vol- 
umes are  full  of  evident  errors,  the  result,  probably,  of  passage  through  sev- 
eral written  and  printed  copies. 


230 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


statement,  as  Mr.  Froude  would  have  us  believe,  is  here 
strengthened  to  the  very  verge  of  demonstration.  Murray's 
account,  we  are  told,  is  an  "  accurate  description  "  of  the 
Glasgow  letter.  Let  us  look  at  the  accuracy.  The  very 
first  point  is  a  fatal  divergence.  Murray  describes  the  let- 
ter as  signed  by  the  Queen  — Jirmada  de  su  nomhre.  No 
such  letter  was  produced  among  the  casket-letters,  which 
were  all  without  seal,  date,  address,  or  signature.  The  Queen 
is  made  to  say  that  she  will  go  and  bring  Darnley  —  iria  d 
traerle  —  that  is,  go  to  Glasgow,  while  the  letter  afterwards 
produced  purports  to  be  written  at  Darnley's  bedside  in 
Glasgow  ;  that  she  would  contrive,  continues  Murray's  ac- 
count,^ to  poison  Darnley  on  the  way,  and,  failing  that, 
would  bring  him  to  the  house  where  the  explosion  by  pow- 
der should  take  place ;  that  Bothwell,  on  his  side,  should 
get  rid  of  his  wife  by  divorce  or  poison  —  and  other  atroci- 
ties —  none  of  which  appear  in  the  letter  subsequently  pro- 
duced. How  does  it  happen  that  Murray's  informant  saw 
them,  if  they  were  not  there  ?  And  if  they  were  there,  how 
came  they  to  disappear  ?  It  should  be  remarked  that  the 
horrible  programme  in  this  letter  is  not  put  forward  by  the 
Queen  as  something  to  be  considered  and  decided  upon  by 
Bothwell,  but  as  the  plan  already  agreed  upon  between 
them  —  lo  que  tenian  or  din  ado. 

Thus,  this  "  accurate  description  "  of  the  casket-letter, 
besides  carefully  specifying  all  the  above  points  which  are 
not  in  it,  totally  fails  to  mention  the  following,  which  clearly 

1  We  cannot  allow  one  of  Mr.  Froude's  many  laudations  of  Murray  to 
pass  without  a  word  of  comment.  He  tells  us  that  in  London,  —  "  whatever 
might  have  heen  his  secret  thoughts,  he  had  breathed  no  word  of  blame 
against  her  (Mary).  He  had  mentioned  to  De  Silva  the  reports  which  were 
current  in  Scotland,  but,  he  had  expressly  said  that  he  did  not  believe  them.'''' 
If  Mr.  Froude  will  take  the  trouble  to  read  his  own  Spanish  citation  (ix. 
119,  120)  he  will  perceive  that  Murray  not  only  repeated  the  contents  of 
the  imaginary  tres  pUegos  de  joape?,  but  volunteered  the  most  atrocious 
accusations  against  the  Queen,  thus  striving,  b}--  repetition  of  reports  and  iiis 
own  personal  statements,  to  make  the  worst  possible  case  against  his  sister, 
with  expression  of  much  affected  distress  about  the  "  honor  of  his  father's 
house." 


IMPORTANT  DISCOVERY. 


231 


appear  from  it.  It  was  written  from  Glasgow ;  it  was  not 
signed  by  the  Queen  ;  it  does  not  even  hint  at  poisoning 
Darnley  on  the  road,  "  a  una  casa  en  el  camino,"  nor  at  the 
Kirk  o'  Field  explosion,  nor  the  murder  of  Lady  Botliwell. 

A    LATE  DISCOVERY. 

Guzman  de  Silva  listened  attentively  to  all  that  Murray 
had  to  say  (July  30,  1567)  concerning  the  letter  by  which 
Mary  was  said  to  have  fatally  compromised  herself,  as 
though  he  had  not  already  heard  of  it.  De  Silva  was  al- 
ways well  informed  as  to  many  secret  movements  of  the 
Scottish  lords,  and  it  is  very  evident  that  he  could  depend 
upon  at  least  one  of  them  for  early  intelligence.  Hereto- 
fore, the  first  recorded  historical  mention  as  to ,  the  exist- 
ence of  Mary's  alleged  letters  has  been  found  in  Throck- 
morton's letter  of  July  25th;  but  a  paper  at  Simancas 
proves  that  De  Silva  had  heard  of  them  before  that  date. 
This  important  discovery  was  made  by  M.  Jules  Gauthier, 
("Histoire  de  Marie  Stuart"^),  and  reveals  the  important 
fact  that  the  casket- letters,  yet  to  be  produced,  were  already 
discussed  in  England  and  known  to  Elizabeth  before  the 
Scottish  lords  had  made  any  public  allusion  to  them.  Here 
is  the  language  of  the  document.  On  the  21st  of  July, 
1567,  De  Silva  writes  to  Philip  — we  translate  :  — 

"  I  told  the  Queen  (Elizabeth)  that  I  had  been  informed  that 
the  lords  were  in  possession  of  certain  letters  from  which  it  ap- 
peared that  the  Queen  of  Scotland  was  knowing  to  the  murder 
of  her  husband.  She  answered  me  that  it  was  not  true,  and, 
moreover,  that  Lethington  was  therein  badly  employed,  and  that, 
if  she  saw  him,  she  would  say  a  few  words  to  him  which  he 
would  find  far  from  agreeable."  2 

1  A  work  of  great  research  and  power.  It  effectually  disposes  of  M. 
Mignet's  effort.  M.  Gauthier  was  a  firm  believer  in  Mary  Stuart's  guilt, 
until,  on  visiting  Edinburgh,  he  Avas  struck  with  the  general  expression 
of  the  fullest  faith  in  her  innocence.  This  led  him  to  examine  the  subject. 
His  examination  extended  through  six  years  of  research,  and  the  result  ia 
his  published  work  in  two  volumes. 

2  "  Apunte  a  la  reyna  que  avia  sido  avisado,  que  en  poder  de  los  seiiores 


232 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


Mr.  Fronde's  labors  at  Simancas  have  been  referred  to 
by  his  admirers  as  one  of  the  triumphs  of  modern  historical 
research.  But  although,  as  he  states,  he  had  "  unrestricted 
access"  to  that  important  collection,  he  does  not  seem  to 
have  made  himself  acquainted  with  this  important  letter 
of  De  Silva.  It  appears  that  Elizabeth  manifested  no  sur- 
prise at  the  ambassador's  announcement,  and  this  goes  far 
to  show  that  the  forged  letters  were  already  under  consid- 
eration in  England  as  a  means  of  inculpating  the  unfortu- 
nate Mary  Stuart.  It  is  equally  evident  that  Elizabeth 
herself  looked  upon  the  letters  as  forgeries  perpetrated  by 
Lethington.^ 

estaban  ciertas  cartas  per  donde  se  entendia  que  la  reyiia  de  Escocia  oviese 
sido  sabidora  de  la  muerte  de  su  marido;  dixome  que  no  era  verdad,  aun 
que  Ledington  avia  tratado  mal  esto,  e  que  si  ella  le  viese,  le  diria  algunas 
palabras  que  no  le  harian  buen  gusto."  —  Archives  of  Simancas,  leg.  819, 
fol.  108 ;  Gauihier,  vol.  ii.  p.  104. 

1  And  this  agrees  perfectly  with  the  intimation  given  by  Camden,  who 
evidently  knew  more  of  Cecil's  secrets  than  he  consigned  to  his  pages,  that 
Lethington  (Maitland)  was  no  stranger  to  their  fabrication.  It  also  accords 
with  the  frequently  expressed  suspicion  of  ]\!ary  Stuart  herself,  and  with 
the  opinion  of  several  historians.  Elizabeth's  answer  leaves  but  little 
doubt  that  the  directing  hand  in  the  forgery  was  Maitland's,  and  we  know- 
that,  next  to  Murray  and  Morton,  he  had  the  greatest  interest  in  fixing 
upon  Mary  the  odium  of  Darnley's  murder. 


CHAPTER  XX. 


"  The  chief  of  the  Council  is  Cecil,  a  man  of  low  extraction,  cunning, 

false,  malicious,  full  of  all  deceit  He  is  diligent,  acute,  and 

never  keeps  faith  or  word."  —  Don  Gueran  in  Fkoude's  History  of  Eng- 
land, ix.  377. 

In  the  opening  pages  of  his  ninth  volume,  the  historian 
deals  his  reader  this  staggering  blow  :  — 

"  As  the  vindication  of  the  conduct  of  the  English  government 
proceeds  on  the  assumption  of  her  guilt,  so  the  determination  of 
her  innocence  will  equally  be  the  absolute  condemnation  of 
Elizabeth  and  Elizabeth's  advisers." 

Rem  acu  tetigisti,  for  that  is  precisely  the  conclusion 
reached  by  those  who  have  most  thoroughly  studied  the 
question.  We  really  wonder  at  Mr.  Froude's  imprudence 
in  drawing  attention  to  Elizabeth  in  this  connection. 
There  was  not  a  plot  or  conspiracy  against  Mary  to  which 
Elizabeth  was  a  stranger.  There  was  not  during  all  Mary's 
reign  a  traitor  or  a  murderer  fleeing  from  Scotland  to 
England  whom  Elizabeth  did  not  protect.  All  the  Riccio 
murderers  were  safe  there.  Ker  of  Faudonside,  who  held 
a  cocked  pistol  at  Mary  during  the  Riccio  murder,  and 
who  was  excepted  from  the  general  pardon,  found  sure 
refuge  in  England  during  all  of  Mary's  reign.^ 

Complicity  in  both  the  Riccio  and  the  Darnley  murder 
is  directly  brought  home  to  Elizabeth  and  Cecil.  The 
first  is  proven  by  the  correspondence  of  that  day  yet  in  the 

1  Mr.  Froude  informs  us  that  "  to  Morton  she  (Elizabeth)  sent  an  order, 
a  copy  of  which  could  be  shown  to  the  Queen  of  Scots,  to  leave  the  coun- 
try; but  she  sent  it  with  a  private  hint  that  England  was  wide,  and  that 
those  who  cared  to  conceal  themselves  could  not  always  be  found."  (viii. 
285.) 


234 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


Record  Office.  The  second  is  sufficiently  made  out  not- 
withstanding the  disappearance  from  the  English  records 
of  the  voluminous  reports  of  the  English  agents  in  Scot- 
land a  month  before  and  a  month  after  the  Darnley  mur- 
der. This  important  fact  has  lately  been  made  known  by 
Mr.  Caird.i    (p.  128.) 

But  Elizabeth's  guilty  knowledge  of  the  Darnley  murder 
most  strikingly  appears  in  her  conduct  when  Morton  was 
tried  for  it.  Fourteen  years  after  the  occurrence,  one  of 
the  first  acts  of  King  James  on  his  freedom  from  tutelage, 
was  to  commit  the  Earl  of  Morton  to  the  Castle  of  Edin- 
burgh, charged  with  the  murder  of  Darnley.  Morton  was 
one  of  the  very  few  surviving  conspirators.  Bothwell  was 
dead  in  exile  ;  Maitland  had  poisoned  himself,  and  Murray 
had  been  shot  down  in  the  streets  of  Linlithgow.  With 
dismay  she  heard  of  his  commitment.  Mr.  Burton  says 
that  "  the  news  were  received  at  the  court  of  Elizabeth 
with  utterances  of  rage  which  took  in  some  measure  the  tone 
of  fear."  It  was  resolved  to  stop  the  proceedings  if  possi- 
ble, and  if  Elizabeth's  own  life  had  been  at  stake,  her 
effi)rts  to  stay  the  trial  could  not  have  been  more  frantic. 
Her  utterances  of  rage  soon  take  the  more  definite  shape 
of  sending  an  army  to  the  Border,  of  reviving  her  old  prac- 
tices of  inciting  insurrection  in  Scotland,  and,  most  signifi- 
cant of  all,  of  sending  to  Edinburgh  the  crafty  Randolph, 
to  whom  Leicester,  Elizabeth's  lover,  wrote,  with  a  sugges- 
tion thinly  veiled,  that  the  young  king  might  follow  his 
father :  "  He  will  not  long  tarry  on  that  soil.  Let  the  fate  of 
his  predecessor  be  his  warning."  Then  came  an  official 
appeal  to  the  Scots  to  protect  Morton,  promising  that  Eng- 
land would  stand  by  them.  "  But  James,"  says  Mr.  Caird, 
"  owed  a  debt  to  the  memory  of  his  murdered  father,  to  the 
name  of  his  captive  mother  who  was  pining  in  an  English 
prison."  Morton  was  tried,  found  guilty,  and  executed. 
Mr.  Caird  cites  and  refers  to  a  mass  of  dispatches  con- 
1  Mary  Stuart,  her  Guilt  or  Innocence.    By  Alexander  McNeel  Caird. 


THE  queen's  jewels. 


235 


iiected  with  Elizabeth's  movements  in  tliis  Morton  matter, 
and  adds  that  Queen  Elizabeth's  violence  before  Morton's 
trial  and  execution  was  not  more  remarkable  than  her  sud- 
den attitude  of  acquiescence  as  soon  as  his  mouth  was  shut. 
"  Did  he  hold  some  terrible  secret  whose  disclosure  she 
feared  ?  "  But  we  have  more  direct  testimony  as  to  the 
complicity  of  Elizabeth  and  Cecil  in  the  Darnley  murder 
from  an  insolently  threatening  letter  written  five  years 
after  the  murder  by  Sir  Janies  Balfour  to  Cecil,  the  orig- 
inal of  which  is  still  preserved  among  the  Cotton  MSS. 
He  advises  Cecil  that  he  requests  "  him  and  the  Queen's 
ynajesty  to  interpose  their  injiu.eace  and  authority  to  protect  him 
from  the  imminent  peril  of  being  brought  to  trial  for  the  mur- 
der.'* He  further  requests  Cecil  "  that  ye  will  procure 
your  Sovereign's  letters  to  be  direct  with  expedition  to  the 
Regent's  grace  and  Council,"  etc.  ;  and  in  conclusion  he 
takes  "  God  to  witness  that  if  any  inconvenience  arise  in 
consequence,  the  ftiult  must  not  be  imputed  to  him,  but 
doubts  not  that  her  Majesty  and  his  Lordship  ivill  think  well 
of  the  matter  and  do  their  part,  so  that  he  obtains  the  surety 
he  requires." 

Thus  wrote  "  the  most  corrupt  man  in  Scotland  "  to  the 
Majesty  of  England  and  her  prime  minister,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  one  guilty  accomplice  to  another.  The  threaten- 
ing insolence  of  his  certainty  that  they  will  think  well  of  the 
matter,  can  only  be  accounted  for  by  the  belief  that  he  had 
a  hold  upon  them. 

THE  queen's  jewels. 

At  Lochleven,  Mary,  in  her  trusting  confidence,  had  vol- 
untarily placed  all  her  valuable  jewels  in  Murray's  hands 
for  safe  keeping.  From  among  them  he  selected  a  set  of 
rare  pearls,^  which  he  sent  by  an  agent  to  Elizabeth,  who 

1  The  pearls  are  thus  described:  "  Six  cordons  of  large  pearls  strung, 
and  five-aiul  twenty  separate  from  the  rest  much  finer  and  larger  than 
those  which  are  strung." 


236 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


agreed  to  purchase  what  she  well  knew  he  had  no  right  to 
sell.  Under  such  circumstances,  as  is  the  custom  among 
thieves  and  receivers,  she  expected  a  bargain,  and  got  it. 
It  was  a  very  pretty  transaction.  Catherine  de  Medicis 
was  anxious  to  obtain  these  pearls,  which  were  esteemed 
the  most  magnificent  in  Europe,  and  wrote  to  La  Forest 
to  purchase  them  for  her.  He  replied  that  he  had  found 
it  "  impossible  to  comply  with  her  majesty's  wish,  for  they 
had  been  intended  for  the  gratification  of  the  Queen  of 
England,  who  had  been  allowed  to  buy  them  at  her  own 
price  —  one  third  less  than  the  sum  at  which  they  had  been 
valued  by  the  jewelers."  The  transaction  naturally  dis- 
turbs our  historian.  Nevertheless,  he  finds  that  "  the  sale 
in  itself  would  seem  too  simple  to  require  to  be  defended. 
Mary  Stuart  was  held  to  have  forfeited  her  crown,  and  in 
justice  to  have  forfeited  her  life." 

Really  this  historian  has  a  strange  code  of  jurisprudence. 
Mary  was  at  Lochleven.  What  court  decided  that  she  had 
forfeited  crown  and  life  ?  Sentence  by  Justice  Murray,  con- 
firmed by  Chief  Justice  Froude,  perchance  ?  The  "  empty 
treasury,"  and  the  "  state  of  anarchy  "  left  by  Mary  Stuart 
are  amusing.  "  Anarchy  and  empty  treasury  "  were  com- 
plaints long  chronic  in  Scotland,  and  during  Mary's  reign 
she  supported  her  court,  not  with  Scotch,  but  with  her  own 
private  funds  from  her  French  dowry.  The  pearls  and 
all  her  other  jewels  were  her  private  property,  brought  with 
her  to  Scotland,  and  she  had  asked  Murray  to  take  charge 
of  them  and  other  personal  effects  of  value  —  a  trust  which 
he  accepted,  and,  of  course,  violated.  But,  after  all,  the 
transaction  must  have  been  blameless,  for  Mr.  Froude  as- 
sures us  that  it  "  seemed  so  little  improper  to  "  —  to  — 
Mary  Stuart  ?  —  not  at  all  —  but  —  "  to  Catherine  de  Me- 
dicis (!)  that  she  wrote  to  her  ambassador"  —  what  the 
historian  cites  but  fails  to  translate.^ 

1  A  clever  woman  -was  Catherine;  for,  finding  that  after  all  her  trouble 
and  anxietj'  to  obtain  the  pearls  she  had  failed  to  secure  them,  she  very 


THE  queen's  jewels. 


237 


Such  of  Mary's  jewels  as  Murray  did  not  sell,  he  retained 
for  himself  or  gave  to  his  wife.  Even  Elizabeth  remon- 
strated with  him  on  his  merchandising,  advising  him  "  to  for- 
bear the  sale,"  "for  otherwise  it  shall  be  judged  that  the 
ground  and  occasion  of  all  your  actions  proceedeth  of  a 
mind  to  spoil  her  of  her  riches,  and  greatly  to  henejit  yourself 
and  your  friends''  (October  2,  1568.)  Elizabeth  writes 
here  with  the  perfect  equanimity  of  the  just,  her  dead  bar- 
gain in  Mary's  pearls  being  closed  some  months  back. 

On  Murray's  death  it  was  known  that  many  of  Mary's 
most  valuable  jewels  were  in  Lady  Murray's  possession.^ 
This  Lady  Murray  —  the  same  who  receipted  to  John- 
stone for  the  "  three  sealed  bags  of  specie,"  —  was,  like 
her  late  lamented  husband,  of  remarkable  acquisitiveness 
and  excellent  business  capacity,  and  successfully  resisted 
all  Mary's  efforts  made  through  the  Earl  of  Huntly  and 
Lord  Seton  —  as  also  those  made  by  the  Regent  Lennox 
and  the  Earl  of  Mar  —  for  the  recovery  of  the  stolen  prop- 
erty. Finally,  Morton,  when  regent,  "  determined  "  —  Mr. 
Burton  states  it  in  this  plain  prose  —  "  to  have  restoration 
of  her  plunder.''  He  says,  too,  with  tenderness  of  phrase 
for  Murray,^  "  It  has  naturally  been  maintained,  and  can- 
not be  disproved,  that  she  obtained  them  by  her  husband's 
connivance."  Among  the  items  of  "  the  plunder  "  was  a 
wondrous  diamond  called  "  the  Great  Harry,"  a  gift  to 

sensibly  makes  the  best  of  it,  andrwith  grimace  of  politeness  protests  she 
is  delighted  that  Elizabeth  has  them.  And  so  she  tells  her  ambassador  — 
"  il  n'est  plus  de  besoing  de  vous  mettre  en  pique  "  — "  there's  no  use  in 
staying  angry  "  —  thus  plainly  implying  the  indignation  expressed  in  his 
previous  letters  on  the  subject. 

1  This  was  strange,  indeed,  for  Murray  had  written  to  his  mistress  Queen 
Elizabeth:  "This  I  may  boldly  affirm  unto  your  Highness,  that  neither  I 
nor  any  friend  of  mine  has  been  enriched  with  the  value  of  a  groat  of  any 
of  her  goods  to  our  private  uses.  Neither,  as  God  knows,  did  the  ground 
and  occasion  of  any  of  my  actions  proceed  of  sic  a  mind."  (October  6, 
1568.) 

2  Whom  he  elsewhere  "  damns  "  with  such  suspicious  praise,  as  "  his 
position  might  have  given  him  opportunities  for  acts  far  more  unscrupu- 
lous than  any  committed  by  him." 


238 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


Mary  from  her  father-in -taw,  King  Henry  II.  of  France. 
Lady  Murray's  (now  Lady  Argyll)  struggle  was  long  and 
obstinate.  Several  orders  for  the  jewels  were  issued  by 
the  Privy  Council.  At  last  (March  5,  1575)  they  were  de- 
livered up, —  "  Ane  great  Harry  of  diamond  with  ane  ruby 
pendant  thereat ;  six  other  jewels,  thereof  three  diamonds 
and  the  other  three  rubies." 

MAITLAND,  KIRKALDAY,  AND  MORTON. 

Surprise  has  been  expressed  that  Mr.  Froude  should 
have  made  so  little  of  Maitland  (Lethington),  the  really 
jDrominent  figure  among  the  Scots  of  his  period.  He  was 
by  far  the  most  talented  man  of  the  day  in  Scotland  and 
England,  of  great  intellectual  grasp  and  high  statesman- 
like power.  And  an  expression  of  similar  surprise  may 
be  made  with  regard  to  Kirkaldy  of  Grange,  —  a  man  of 
many  heroic  qualities  and  the  best  soldier  of  his  day  in  all 
Britain.  The  secret  of  Mr.  Fronde's  reserve  on  this  point 
may  perhaps  be  found  in  the  fact  that  in  the  day  of  Mary 
Stuart's  adversity  these  men  openly  espoused  her  cause,  and 
sealed  their  devotion  by  dying  for  it,  thus  practically  pro- 
testing against  the  inflmious  plot  in  which  they  themselves 
were  banded  against  her. 

On  the  other  hand,  we  have  already  spoken  of  the  readi- 
ness with  which  that  writer  issues  certificates  of  the  high- 
est moral  excellence  to  any  enemy  of  Mary  Stuart,  mean- 
time suppressing  or  softening  mention  of  his  misdeeds. 
This  is  very  plain  in  the  case  of  Murray  ;  and  a  strong 
effort  is  also  made  for  Morton,  a  man  steeped  in  crime. 
His  merit  in  the  eyes  of  our  historian  is  that  "  he  di- 
rected the  storm  which  drove  Mary  Stuart  from  her  throne 
and  imprisoned  her  at  Lochleven."  Merit  like  that  must 
be  rewarded  at  least  by  negative  praise  and  suppression 
—  thus :  "  His  middle  life  was  very  far  from  blameless" 
Very  far,  indeed  !  He  was  notoriously  gnilty  of  seduc- 
tion, adultery,  robbery,  peculation,  oppression,  and  mur- 


MORTON  SELLS  NORTHUMBERLAND. 


239 


der.^  Robertson  says  that  when  he  was  regent,  "  spies 
and  informers  were  everywhere  employed,  the  remem- 
brance of  old  offenses  was  revived,  imaginary  crimes  were 
invented,  petty  trespasses  were  aggravated,  and  delinquents 
were  compelled  to  compound  for  their  lives  by  the  pay- 
ment of  exorbitant  fines." 

The  effort  made  in  Mr.  Fronde's  history  to  suppress 
Morton's  crowning  infamy  is  so  remarkable  that  it  should 
not  be  passed  over.  When,  after  the  Riccio  murder,  Mor- 
ton fled  to  England,  he  enjoyed  the  hospitality  of  Percy, 
Earl  of  Northumberland.  A  few  years  later  the  Earl 
took  refuge  in  Scotland  from  Elizabeth's  omnivorous  scaf- 
fold. Murray  would  have  delivered  him  up  for  a  price, 
but  dared  not.^ 

Soon  afterward  Morton  delivered,  or  rather  sold  North- 
umberland to  Elizabeth.  "No  one,"  wrote  Hunsdon  to 
Cecil,  "  spoke  more  loudly  against  the  proposed  surrender 
(by  Murray)  than  Morton,  yet  it  was  he  himself  who  after- 
wards gave  up  Northumberland  for  a  large  bribe."  The 
fact  that  Morton  was  guilty  of  this  infamy  is  not  a  question 
to  be  discussed,  so  thoroughly  settled  is  it,  and  so  indelibly 
recorded  in  the  historic  annals  of  both  England  and 
Scotland  as  a  deep  stain  on  the  honor  of  the  one  and  the 
humanity  of  the  other. 

1  The  following  description  of  an  original  portrait  of  Morton,  at  Dalma- 
hoy  House,  is  from  vol.  v.  p.  91,  Miss  Strickland's  Lives  of  the  Queens 
of  Scotland:  "He  wears  the  Geneva  hat,  but  it  neither  conceals  the  vil- 
lainous contour  of  his  retreating  forehead,  nor  the  sinister  glance  of  the 
small  gray  eyes  peering  from  under  his  red  shaggy  brows.  The  very  twist 
of  his  crooked  nose  is  expressive  of  craft  and  cruelty;  the  long  upper  lip, 
hollow  mouth,  and  flat  square  chin  are  muffled  in  a  bush  of  red  mustache 
and  beard ;  but  the  general  outline  is  most  repulsive,  and  bespeaks  the  hypo- 
crite, the  sensualist,  the  assassin,  and  the  miser  —  and  all  these  he  was." 

2  The  very  thieves  of  Liddesdale  shrank  in  horror  from  the  perpetration 
of  such  dishonorable  meanness,  and  threatened  that  if  Murray  attempted 
it,  '*  the  Borderers  would  start  up  and  rive  both  the  Queen  and  the  lords 
from  him,  for  the  like  shame  was  never  done  in  Scotland;  and  that  he 
durst  better  eat  his  own  luggs  than  come  again  to  Fernihurst ;  if  he  did,  he 
should  be  focht  with  ere  he  crossed  Soutra  edge." 


240 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


Mr.  Burton,  the  latest  historian  of  Scotland,  thus  relates 
it:  — 

"  He  (Morton)  had  the  captive  in  his  own  custody  in  the  Castle 
of  Lochleven,  so  that  he  did  not  require  to  compromise  the  gov- 
ernment in  the  matter  ;  and  before  that  time  when  he  became  re- 
gent —  June  7  —  he  handed  over  Northumberland  to  the  English 
authorities.  It  would  appear  that  £2,000  cash  down,  forming 
the  consideration  for  this  concession,  of  which  a  contemporary 
says,  '  The  fault  was  done  for  some  other  cause  nor  we  know,  to 
the  great  shame  of  this  realm  to  send  so  noble  a  man  ane  prisoner, 
y  ea,  that  came  in  this  realm  for  safety  of  his  life,  wha  was  soon 
after  his  coming  to  London,  headed,  quartered,  and  drawn.'  " 
(vol.  V.  p.  330.) 

In  the  "  Historie  of  King  James  the  Sext,"  we  read :  — 

"  The  Earle  of  Northumberland  was  randerit  to  the  Queene 
of  Ingland,  furth  of  the  Castell  of  Lochlevin,  be  a  certain  condi- 
tion maid  betwix  hir  and  the  Earle  of  Mortoun  for  gold  ;  quilk 
was  thankfullie  payit  to  Mortoun,"  etc. 

Throughout  all  Scotch  history  there  is  but  one  version 
of  the  fact.  But  Mr.  Froude  thus  relates  the  infamy,  to- 
tally ignoring  Morton  as  its  perpetrator :  — 

"  Randolph,"  he  says,  was  permitted  afterwards  to  open  a  ne- 
gotiation with  the  Lord  of  Lochleven,  who  undertook  to  put  North- 
umberland in  the  Queen's  hands  for  the  sum,"  etc.  "  Lochleven 
was  evidently  in  earnest.  The  Queen  could  not  lose  her  prize, 
and  the  money  was  sent  to  Berwick  to  be  paid  on  receipt  of  the 
Earl's  person.  Morton  still  attempted  to  make  delays,  less  in 
pity  for  Percy  than  in  indignation  at  Elizabeth  ;  but  £2,000  was 
a  temptation  too  considerable  for  a  needy  Scotch  gentleman  to 
resist.  To  Sir  Wm.  Douglas  it  was  indifferent  whether  he  re- 
ceived it  from  England  or  Flanders,"  etc.  "  He  (Morton)  con- 
tented himself,  therefore,  with  entreating  that  at  all  events  the 
Earl's  life  might  be  spared,"  etc. 

Elizabeth  spare  his  life  !  Our  historian  may  well  add  : 
"  The  bargain  was  a  bitter  one  to  Scotland.  The  passions 
of  the  people  were  heated  sevenfold."    (x.  350.) 


MORTON'S  CHARACTER. 


241 


As  long  as  Mary  Stuart  is  in  question,  Morton  must  be 
protected  by  this  historian,  although  away  from  her,  he  ap- 
pears to  be  quite  capable  of  at  least  a  partial  appreciation 
of  his  true  character.  In  the  month  of  November,  1865, 
Mr.  Froude  delivered  a  public  lecture  at  Edinburgh,  in  the 
course  of  which  he  told  his  audience :  "  Morton  was  an 
unprincipled  scoundrel,  who  used  the  Reformation  as  a 
stalking-horse  to  cover  the  spoils  which  he  had  clutched  in 
the  confusion." 

And  it  was  solely  on  the  word  or  oath  —  it  really  does 
not  matter  which  —  of  this  man  Morton,  that  the  story  of 
the  capture  of  the  casket-letters,  and  of  their  identity,  was 
accepted  as  judicial  testimony  by  the  English  commission- 
ers, and  is  now  accepted  by  Messieurs  Froude,  Mignet,  and 
Burton ! 

16 


CHAPTER  XXL 


THE  CONFERENCE  AT  YORK. 

"  Little  did  Cecil  foresee,  when  he  was  busily  framing  one  hollow  pretext 
after  another  for  detaining  the  royal  fugitive,  what  a  future  he  was  prepar- 
ing for  his  royal  mistress  Nineteen  years  of  incessant  remon- 
strance and  recrimination,  of  incessant  anxiety  and  danger,  as  well  from 
foreign  as  from  domestic  foes,  to  be  followed  by  an  eternity  of  infamy  at 
last."  — HosACK,  Mary  and  her  Accusers^  p.  386. 

We  must  positively  decline  sharing  with  Mr.  Froude  his 
enthusiastic  admiration  of  Cecil  as  a  Christian  statesman. 
The  man  who  as  prime  minister  of  England  could  receive 
and  entertain  propositions  from  assassins  for  doing  a  piece 
of  work  in  their  line,^  who  could  so  intimately  connect  him- 
self as  he  did  with  the  Riccio  and  Darnley  murderers,  who 
for  long  years  disgraced  England  and  humanity  by  the 
constant  use  of  a  system  of  torture  which  dwarfed  the 
Spanish  Inquisition  into  a  mere  apprentice  in  cruelty,  and 
who  could  in  cold  blood  treat  a  defenseless  woman  as  he 
treated  the  Queen  of  Scots,  must  have  been  essentially  a 
bad  man.  His  ability,  such  as  it  was,  no  one  contests. 
Statesmanship  in  the  brutal  and  bloody  days  of  the  despotic 
rei^n  of  Elizabeth  demanded  a  man  who  was  something  of 
a  cross  between  Fouche  and  Torquemada.    He  was  cool, 

1  An  English  gentleman  named  Woodshawe  wrote  to  Cecil,  Lord  Bur- 
leigh, in  November,  1575,  confessing  a  burglary,  and  offering  to  poison 
people  in  Flanders  whose  hospitality  he  was  then  enjoj'ing.  A  pious  English 
gentleman,  he  was  too,  for  he  tells  Cecil  in  the  same  letter:  "  What  I  have 
been,  God  forgive  me  my  folly;  but  what  I  am,  I  pray  God  give  me  grace 
that  I  may  do  that  service  to  the  Queen's  majesty  and  my  country  which 
my  faithful  heart  is  willing  to  do."  The  incident  is  almost  incredible  in  its 
infamy,  but  is  so  true  that  even  Mr.  Froude  relates  it  (ix.  40),  and  says: 
"■  Nor  is  this  the  strangest  part  of  the  storj'.  Loi^d  Burghley  condescended 
to  make  use  of  this  many 


AN  ENGLISH  STATESMAN. 


243 


calculating,  and  cautious,  well  weighing  the  pros  and  cons 
of  his  questions  before  he  moved  or  struck.  The  English 
StiUe  Papers  are  full  of  such  notes  as  he  was  evidently  in 
the  habit  of  making  for  the  purpose  of  arguing,  as  it  were, 
before  himself,  any  given  case.  One  of  the  most  remark- 
able of  these  memoranda  is  the  following  document  in  his 
own  hand  found  among  his  papers,  and  still  in  existence, 
in  which  he  defines  Mary  Stuart's  relation  to  the  English 
government  on  her  arrival  in  England. 

"PRO  REGINA  SCOTORUM. 

"  She  is  to  be  helped,  because  she  came  willingly  into  the  realm 
upon  trust  of  the  Queen's  majesty.  She  trusted  upon  the 
Queeu's  majesty's  help  because  she  had  in  her  troubles  received 
many  messages  to  that  effect.  She  is  not  lawfully  condemned, 
because  she  was  first  taken  by  her  subjects,  by  force  kept  in 
prison,  put  in  fear  of  her  life,  charged  with  the  murder  of  her 
husband,  and  not  admitted  to  answer  thereto,  neither  in  her  own 
person  nor  by  advocate,  before  them  which  in  Parliament  did 
condemn  her." 

The  position  here  made  for  the  Scottish  Queen  is  simply 
impregnable,  and  these  few  lines  present  the  facts,  the  logic, 
the  law,  and  the  justice  of  the  case.  But  what  had  justice, 
or  even  mercy^  to  do  with  the  rule  of  Cecil  and  Elizabeth. 
It  was  resolved  she  should  be  kept  a  prisoner.  We  would 
not  wonder  that  our  English  historian  should  find  it  dif- 
ficult to  give  any  clear  idea  of  the  frightful  dimensions  or 
the  labyrinthine  complication  of  Elizabeth's  mendacity  and 
double  dealing  in  her  transactions  with  the  Scotch  Queen 
on  the  one  hand  and  the  Scotch  lords  on  the  other.  If  he 
simply  desired  to  recount  events  fairly,  it  must  be  conceded 
that  the  task  is  not  an  easy  one.  But  when,  to  a  total 
disinclination  to  do  this  much,  he  superadds  the  effort  to 
deepen  the  colors  of  his  portrait  of  Mary  Stuart  as  the 
worst  of  women,  and  to  lend  angelic  tints  to  the  picture  of 
his  spotless  Murray,  it  can  readily  be  understood  what 


244 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


manner  of  fiction  we  have  before  us.  It  is  simply  impos- 
sible for  the  reader  to  obtain  from  Mr.  Froude's  narrative 
any  clear  idea  of  the  events  connected  with  Murray's  pro- 
duction of  his  "  copies  "  at  York  and  his  casket  at  West- 
minster. 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  if  Mary  Stuart  had  wished 
to  avoid  the  alleged  danger  of  the  casket-letters,  all  she 
had  to  do  was,  as  a  sovereign  to  decline  the  competency  of  any 
tribunal  or  commission  to  examine  or  decide  upon  any  ques- 
tion touching  her.  But  she  was  induced  to  consent  to  the 
conference  in  order  to  show  that  Morton  and  the  rest  were 
Darnley's  murderers.  The  conference  being  determined 
upon,  what  is  Murray's  position  ?  If  his  casket-letters  are 
not  forgeries  all  he  has  to  do  is  to  present  them,  and  there 
is  an  end  of  the  Queen  of  Scots  and  of  her  case ;  for  if 
these  letters  be  the  letters  of  Mary  Stuart,  she  is,  beyond 
all  peradventure,  an  adulteress  and  the  murderer  of  her 
husband.  Let  us  not  be  told  of  any  delicacy  or  brotherly 
affection  on  his  part  that  should  make  him  hesitate  thus  to 
publish  his  sister's  shame  to  the  world.  He  had  already 
repeatedly  done  so  in  Scotland  by  public  proclamation. 
But  still  he  does  not  produce  his  casket,  and  here,  we  are 
told,  is  the  reason  :  — 

"  Murray,  not  choosing  to  step  forward  in  the  dark  and  make 
himself  Elizabeth  cat's-paw  (!)  immediately  sent  translations  of 
the  casket-letters  to  London.  He  said  that  he  could  produce  the 
originals,  and  prove  them  to  be  in  the  Queen's  hand.  He  de- 
sired to  know  whether  they  were  to  be  admitted  in  evidence  ; 
and  if  admitted,  what  effect  would  follow."    (ix.  263.) 

So  far  as  this  pretends  to  give  the  sense  of  Murray's 
request  to  Elizabeth,  it  is  the  merest  rubbish  —  a  delusion 
and  a  snare.^ 

1  Here  is  what  Murray  wrote :  "  It  may  be  that  snch  letters  as  we  have 
of  the  Queen  that  sufficiently,  in  our  opinion,  prove  her  consenting  to  the 
murder  of  the  King  her  lawful  husband,  shall  be  called  in  doubt  by  the 
judges  to  be  constituted  for  the  examination  and  trial  of  the  cause,  whether 


WHY  PRODUCE  COPIES? 


245 


The  modern  bank  forger  dares  not  walk  boldly  up  to  the 
cashier  and  demand  the  value  called  for  by  his  check,  but 
takes  the  precaution  first  to  send  some  one  to  ascertain  if 
it  can  be  certified.  With  similar  deceit,.  Murray  asks  for 
judgment  on  his  copies.  The  timid  anxiety  of  the  forger 
is  seen  in  this  first  step,  and  on  this  clearly  suspicious 
course  of  producing  copies  instead  of  originals,  we  are 
happy  to  offer  the  opinion  of  a  distinguished  English  his- 
torian, who,  "  clothed  in  his  right  mind  "  in  commenting 
on  the  case  of  the  Blount  (Leicester)  letters  in  England, 
says :  — 

"  But  in  that  case,  and  in  any  case,  it  remains  to  ask  why  he 
produced  copies  of  the  letters  if  he  was  in  possession  of  the  orig- 
inals ;  unless  there  was  something  in  the  originals  which  he  was 
unwilling  to  show  ?  "  (See  "  History  of  England,"  by  James 
Anthony  Froude,  vii.  290.) 

Yet,  after  all,  Murray's  copies  turn  out  to  be  translations 
** in  our  language"  that  is  to  say,  Scotch.  Scotch  copies  for 
Elizabeth  who  did  not  understand  nor  read  the  language, 
instead  of  copies  of  the  originals  in  French  (as  alleged) 
which  she  could  read.  The  truth  is  that  Murray  was  even 
worse  off  than  Blount,  who  may  have  had  something  he 
was  unwilling  to  show  in  the  originals,  for  the  casket  orig- 
inals were  not  yet  manufactured  of  the  two  or  three  let- 
ters upon  which  the  forgers  most  relied.  The  only  letters 
of  importance  as  testimony  against  the  Queen  are  the  two 
first,  and  they  were  conclusively  proven  by  Goodal,  and 
the  elder  Tytler,  more  than  a  century  ago,  to  have  been 

they  may  stand  or  fall,  prove  or  not.  Therefore,  since  our  sei-vant  Mr. 
John  Wood  has  the  copies  of  the  same  letters  translated  in  our  language,  we 
•would  earnestly  desire  that  the  said  copies  maybe  considered  by  the  judges 
that  shall  have  the  examination  and  commission  of  the  matter,  that  ih.e,y 
may  resolve  us  thus  far  in  case  the  principal  agree  with  the  copy,  that  then 
we  prove  the  cause  indeed ;  for  when  we  have  manifested  and  shown  all,  and 
yet  shall  have  no  assurance  that  what  we  send  shall  satisfy  for  probation^  for 
what  purpose  shall  we  either  accuse  or  seek  to  prove,  wlien  we  are  not  as- 
sured what  to  prove,  or  when  we  have  proved,  what  shall  succeed  ?  " 


246 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


written  originally  in  Scotch.  But  Mary  Stuart  could  not 
write  the  Scotch  language,  and  French  versions  of  the  Scotch 
drafts  were  produced  and  alleged  to  be  hers.^ 

All  Mary's  papers  at  llolyrood,  and  all  Darnley's  papers 
at  Kirk  o'  Field  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  lords,  and  it  was 
a  clever  device  to  select  a  few  of  Mary's  genuine  letters  to 
Darnley  (mainly  expressions  of  affection)  to  mingle  with  the 
counterfeits.  These  casket-letters  all  come  to  us  -from 
the  same  source,  the  Darnley  letters  in  Mary's  beautiful 
French  ;  and  when  the  forgery  is  plainly  shown  by  Goodal's 
demonstration,  that  the  French  of  those  letters  only  which 
prove  the  Queen's  guilt  is  a  translation,  and  a  very  bad  trans- 
lation, from  the  Scotch,  we  are  told  that  there  must  have 
been  another  French  version  which  has  disappeared.  Mr. 
Froude  makes  a  feeble  attempt  to  get  over  this  difficulty  with 
his  solitary  critical  objection  "  at  p.  62.  vol.  ix.  Murray 
moreover  modestly  asked  that  the  judges  should  beforehand 
give  him  —  not  an  opinion  as  to  their  sufficiency,  but  the 
assurance  that  his  copies  would  be  accepted  as  conclusive. 

Meantime  Mary  made  a  declaration  to  the  effect  that 
the  letters  referred  to  which  may  infer  presumptions 
against  me  are  false  and  feigned,  forged  and  invented  by 
themselves  to  my  dishonor  and  slander,"  etc. 

October  11th  INIurray  submitted  the  letters  private 
and  secret  conference  "  to  the  English  Commissioners,  and 
these  letters  so  submitted  were  in  Scotch.  He  exhibited 
them  as  the  originals,  and  showed  them  to  the  English 
Commissioners  as  Mary  Stuart's  letters.  Norfolk,  one  of 
the  Commissioners,  wrote  to  P^lizabeth  (as  quoted  ix.  294) : 

1  The  proofs  that  the  Scotch  was  their  original  idiom  are  numerous,  un- 
answerable and  some  of  them  very  amusing.  The  Queen  is  made  to  write, 
"I  shall  end  niy  bylle  (bybil)  "  —  a  Scotch  word  still  used  for  any  writing 
—  translated  into  Latin  biblin,  thence  into  Frencli  bible.  Again,  "I  am 
ii'kit  (weary)  and  going  to  sleep."  Mot  understanding  the  word,  the  Latin 
translator  makes  naked  of  it,  and  solemn'^'  puts  down  "  J'Jyo  nudatn  sum,^^ 
and  is  followed  in  French  with  an  improvement,  Je  suis  toute  nue.'"  And 
this  is  claimed  to  have  been  written  in  the  month  of  January. 


MR.  FROUDK'S  invention. 


24T 


"  They  showed  me  a  horrible  and  h)nj;  letter  of  her  own 
hand,  as  they  say,  containing  foul  matter,"  etc.  "  The 
lords."  he  said,"  were  ready  to  swear  that  both  letters  and 
verses  were  in  her  own  handwriting." 

Our  historian  is  very  careful  here  to  avoid  committing 
himself  on  the  points  as  to  whether  the  letters  thus  shown 
were  in  Scotch  or  in  French,  and  gives  his  reader  this 
piece  of  ambiguity  :  "  He  allowed  the  Commissioners  to 
see'in  private  ivhat  he  loasahle  to  produce"  He  continues  : 
'*  He  (Norfolk)  inclosed  extracts  from  the  letters  in  his 
dispatch,  and  he  left  it  to  Elizabeth  to  say  whether,  if  they 
were  genuine,  '  ivhich  he  and  his  co?npam'ons  believed  them 
to  be'  there  could  be  any  doubt  of  the  Queen  of  Scots' 
guilt."  (ix.  295.)  The  passage  in  Italics  is  put  by  Mr. 
Fronde  in  inverted  commas,  as  though  quoting  it  from 
Norfolk's  letter.  The  old  story  !  The  passage  is  of  his 
own  invention. 

THERE  ARE  NO  SUCH  WORDS  IN  IT,  NOR 
ANYTHING  LIKE  THEM.^ 

Norfolk  "  inclosed  extracts  from  the  letters  "  "  in  her 
own  handwriting."  A  correct  statement,  with  the  qualifi- 
cation "  as  they  say,"  and  the  extracts  are  all  Scotch.^ 

The  English  Commissioners  were  the  Duke  of  Norfolk, 
the  Earl  of  Sussex,  and  Sir  Ralph  Sadler.  Of  these  three 
men,  Cecil  had  the  highest  opinion  of  Sussex,  and  wrote 
privately  to  him  for  his  views  and  advice  as  to  the  matters 
before  them.  Mr.  Froude  states  this  fact  more  concisely  : 
"  Lord  Sussex,  in  an  able  letter,  laid  before  Cecil  the  whole 

1  Cah'd,  preface  to  2d  ed.  p.  34. 

2  One  of  them  was  a  most  dishonest  trick  even  for  forgers.  They  put  in 
the  Scotch  version  "  M -k  (jwJe  waich  that  the  bird  escape  not  out  of  the 
c^ge  ;  "  which  is  now  found  to  b^.  the  false  translation  of  a  portion  of  Mary's 
beautiful  sentence,  "  Comme  I'oyseau  eschappd  de  la  cage,  ou  la  tourtre 
qui  est  sans  compagne.  ainsi  je  demeureray  seule,  pour  pleurer  vostre  ab- 
sence, quelque  brieve  quVlle  puisse  e?tre,"  and  was  invented  to  convey  the 
idea  of  a  warning  from  the  Queen  to  Bothwell  not  to  let  Darnley  escape. 
It  is  in  letter  No.  4,  English  edition,  of  the  Detection.  This  letter  car- 
ries internal  evidence  of  being  a  genuine  letter  of  Mary  to  Darnley. 


248 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


bearing  of  the  question."  Mr.  Froude  is  eminently  correct 
here.  It  is  an  able  letter.  Sussex  had  seen  "  what  Mur- 
ray was  able  to  produce,"  and  more  than  he  dared  ever 
produce  a  second  time ;  ^  he  had  doubtless  reflected  on  the 
matter  during  the  interval,  eleven  days,  and  he  wrote  on 
the  22d  of  October  to  Cecil  that,,  relying  on  his  promise 
of  secrecy,  he  imparts  his  views,  and  thinks  the  accusation 
of  the  Queen  of  Scots  will  hardly  be  attempted.  Of  all 
this  Mr.  Froude  makes  no  mention,  and  says  that  Sussex's 
first  position  was  that  the  Queen  would  disown  the  letters, 
and  accuse  Murray's  friends  of  consent  to  the  murder. 
We  shall  now  state  in  the  Duke's  own  language  what  he 
really  said  on  this  point,  and  give  the  reader  an  opportunity 
of  contrasting  his  words  with  the  historian's  version  of 
them  :  — 


What  Mr.  Froude  says  the 
Duke  or  Sussex  wrote 
TO  Cecil,    (ix.  297.) 

"  The  matter  would  have  to 
end  either  by  finding  the  Queen 
guilty,  or  by  some  composition 
which  would  save  her  reputa- 
tion. The  first  method  would  he 
the  best,  hut  it  would  require  Mur- 
ray's help,  and  Murray,  for  two 
reasons,  might  noiv  decline  to  give 
it.  "  1 .  She  would  disown  the 
letters,  and  in  return  accuse  his 
friends  of  manifest  consent  to 
the  murder  hardly  to  be  de- 
nied." 


What  the  Duke  of  Sus- 
sex REALLY  WROTE  TO  CE- 
CIL. 

»  October  22, 15—. 
"  This  matter  must  at  length 
take  end,  either  by  finding  the 
Scotch  Queen  guilty  of  the 
crimes  that  are  objected  against 
her,  or  by  some  manner  of  com- 
position with  a  show  of  saving 
her  honour.  The  first,  I  think, 
will  hardly  be  attempted,  for  two 
causes  :  the  one,  fior  that  if  her 
adverse  party  accuse  her  of  the 
murder  hy  producing  of  her  let- 
ters, she  loill  deny  them,  and  ac- 
cuse the  most  of  them  of  mani- 
fest consent  to  the  murder, 


1  The  following  documents  shown  as  part  of  the  contents  of  the  casket 
at  York,  were  never  afterwai'ds  produced :  First,  A  pretended  letter  of 
the  Queen  concerning  the  altercation  between  Darnley  and  Lord  Robert 
Stuart.  Second,  A  warrant,  signed,  they  declared,  with  the  Queen's  own 
hand,  authorizing  the  nobility  to  sign  the  Ainslie  bond. 


BOLD  MISREPRESENTATION. 


249 


haxdly  to  be  denied ;  so  as  upon 
the  trial  on  both  sides,  HER 
PROOFS  WILL  JUDICIAL- 
LY FALL  BEST  OUT,  AS 
IT  IS  THOUGHT." 

Overlooking  minor  irregularities  in  this  pretended  ver- 
sion given  by  Mr.  Froude  of  the  Sussex  letter,  it  will  be 
noticed  that  the  passages  marked  by  Italics  and  capitals  in 
the  original  letter  of  the  Duke  are  suppressed  ;  and  that 
the  passages  in  the  pretepded  version  which  are  marked 
in  Italics  are  of  the  writer's  own  invention.  Moreover, 
both  the  suppression  and  the  invention  are  very  serious  in 
their  nature.  Sussex,  so  far  from  thinking  that  it  would 
be  best  to  find  the  Queen  guilty,  expressly  says  that  in  his 
opinion  it  will  not  be  attempted,  for  she  will  deny  (not  dis- 
own) her  letters  and  present  a  stronger  case  against  them 
than  they  can  make  out  against  her.  As  to  the  insertion 
of  the  passage  Concerning  Murray,  we  pass  it  without  com- 
ment. 

It  will  be  noted  that  this  judgment  of  Sussex  is  no  mere 
idle  conversation,  but  a  deliberate  opinion,  given  under  an 
appreciation  of  the  highest  responsibility.  The  inference 
is  irresistible  that  he  placed  no  faith  in  the  genuineness 
of  the  letters  produced  as  writings  of  the  Queen,  although, 
if  the  Glasgow  letters  are  hers,  there  is  no  escaping  belief 
in  her  guilt. 

It  is  necessary  to  bear  in  mind  that  Murray  exhibited 
"  what  he  was  able  to  produce  "  to  the  English  Commis- 
sioners "  in  private  and  secret  conference,"  —  so  say  the 
Commissioners  themselves,  —  and  neither  the  Queen  herself 
nor  her  Commissioners  had  any  knowledge  of  it.  These 
facts  have  only  of  late  years  come  to  light,  all  that  is  known 
of  them  being  revealed  by  the  confidential  letters  of  Sus- 
sex and  Norfolk  —  letters  which  Hume  and  Robertson 
never  saw.  Norfolk,  at  first  somewhat  dazed  by  the  "  hor- 
rible letter,"  appears  a  few  days  later  to  have  viewed  the 


250 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


matter  differently,  and  writes  to  Cecil  that  the  affair  is 
perilous  and  perplexing,"  adding,  that  if  she  is  formally 
accused,  she  will  desire  to  be  present  in  person.  And  so, 
not  noticing  Elizabeth's  devices  for  delay,  the  York  con- 
ference closed.  Murray  took  with  him  to  York,  Lord  Lind- 
say, Maitland,  John  Wood,  Pitcairn,  Mackill,  Balnaves,  and 
Buchanan,  whose  pen  had  already  been  purchased  for  Mur- 
ray's purposes.  We  have  seen  some  of  these  men  among 
the  murderers  of  Cardinal  Beaton,  some  with  the  murder- 
ers of  Riccio,  others  banded  with  the  murderers  of  Darn- 
ley,  and  four  of  them  sat  as  judges  at  the  mock  trial  of 
Bothwell. 


CHAPTER  XXII. 


WESTMINISTER.  TART  FIRST. 

"Void  la  Cassette  Miraculeuse."  —  Robert  Houdin. 

The  Duke  of  Norfolk  was  right.  The  Queen  of  Scots, 
if  accused,  would  wish  to  be  present  in  person.  On  the 
22d  of  November,  1568,  Mary  instructed  her  Commission- 
ers, Leslie,  Bishop  of  Ross,  the  Lords  Herries  (Protestant), 
Boyd  (Protestant),  and  Livingstone  (Protestant),  Gavin 
Hamilton  the  Commendator  of  Kilwinning  (Protestant), 
Sir  Jolin  Gordon  of  Lochinvar,  and  Sir  James  Cockburn 
of  Skirling  to  demand  that  she  should  be  permitted  to  appear 
inperson  in  presence  of  the  Queen  of  England^  the  whole  of 
her  nobility^  and  all  the  foreign  ambassadors  in  London,  to 
answer  all  that  "  may  or  can  be  alleged  against  ris  by  the  cal- 
umnies of  our  rebels."  She  further  instructed  her  Commis- 
sioners, in  case  of  refusal  of  this  demand,  to  break  off  the 
conference.  In  other  words,  she  is  ready  to  meet  Murray, 
Morton,  the  rebel  lords,  their  accusations,  and  the  casket- 
letters,  in  face  of  the  whole  world.  Any  attitude  less  de- 
cided than  this  might  have  warranted  the  imputation  of 
Mary  Stuart's  N.  ant  of  confidence  in  her  own  innocence. 

If  Elizabeth  and  Cecil  had  possessed  the  slightest  faith 
in  the  strength  of  the  case  against  the  Scottish  Queen,  they 
would  have  eagerly  closed  with  the  proposal,  for  only  of 
Mary's  own  free  will  could  they  place  her  in  such  a  posi- 
tion of  publicity.  Their  inclination  favored  it,  their  in- 
terest demanded  it.  But  the  warning  of  Sussex  was  be- 
fore them,  —  her  proofs  will  judicially  pall  best 
OUT,  —  and  they  dared  not  run  the  risk  of  a  public  failure. 
An  evasive  answer  wUs  given  the  Commissioners,  and 


252 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


fiirther  delay  made.  Mr.  Froude  cites  (ix.  341)  in  a  note, 
"The  Queen  of  Scots  to  the  Bishop  of  Ross  and  Lord 
Herries,  Nov.  22.  Goodal,  vol.  ii."  This  is  the  paper 
containing  Mary's  demand  (p.  185),  which  Mr.  Froude 
deliberately  suppresses,  substituting  for  it  the  statement 
(p.  342),  "  She  demanded  to  be  heard  in  person  in  reply 
before  the  assembled  English  peers ; "  and  the  sneer  at 
p.  352,  "  The  Queen  of  Scots,  in  applying  to  be  heard 
in  person,  had  contemplated  a  pageant  at  Westminster  # 
Hall,"  etc.  For  an  excellent  specimen  of  rhetorical  device 
the  reader  may  see  pp.  342,  343  vol.  ix.  beginning,  "  It 
seems,"  and  ending, "  The  Regent  laid  on  the  table  a  written 
declaration  that  his  sister  had  been  the  contriver  and  de- 
viser of  the  murder  of  which  Bothwell  had  been  the  instru- 
ment." Mr.  Froude  is  here  entirely  too  considerate  of 
Mary  Stuart's  reputation.  He  omits  to  tell  the  reader  that 
Murray  added  to  the  charge  of  murdering  her  husband, 
"  an  intent  to  murder  her  child."  Then,  melodramat- 
ically, "  The  accusation  was  given  in.  The  evidence  on 
which  all  would  turn  was  still  in  reserve."  It  was  indeed 
in  reserve,  and  hung  fire  like  unto  any  other  damaged  am- 
munition. And  then  we  are  told  of  what  Mary  feared, 
and  what  she  felt,  and  the  precise  condition  of  her  mind. 
Here  we  are  powerless  for  comment.  On  Mary's  demand 
to  be  heard  in  person,  Elizabeth  still  dissembled,  still  equiv- 
ocated to  the  Commissioners,  telling  them  (December  4) 
that  she  would  not  consent  to  endanger  the  Queen's  honor 
unless  the  accusation  might  first  appear  to  have  more  likeli- 
hood of  just  cause  than  she  did  find  therein,'^  —  in  other 
words,  that  Murray's  case  against  his  sister  was  not  suffi- 
cient to  justify  the  necessity  of  her  appearance.  There  was 
more  shuffling,  more  evasion  on  the  part  of  Elizabeth  and 
Cecil,  until  on  the  6th  of  December  Mary's  Commissioners 
gave  notice  that  they  would  go  no  further  until  they  had 
received  "  a  resolute  and  direct  answer  "  to  the  Queen's  de- 
mand.   There  was  no  "  The  Bishop  coldly  said "  in  the 


BOOK  OF  ARTICLES. 


253 


case.  On  the  contrary,  the  two  acting  Commissioners, 
Leslie  and  Lord  Merries,  warmly,  but  with  dignity,  solemnly 
protested  "  that  in  case  your  lordships  proceed  in  the  con- 
trary, that  whatever  has  been,  or  shall  be  done  hereafter, 
shall  not  prejudge  in  any  manner  of  way  our  mistress  and 
sovereign's  honor,  person,  crown,  and  estate  ;  and  we  for 
our  part  dissolve  and  discharge  this  present  conference, 
having  special  command  thereto  by  our  said  sovereign  in 
case  aforesaid." 

Elizabeth,  as  we  have  seen,  did  not  dare  allow  Mary  to 
be  heard  in  defense  personally  and  publicly,  nor  did  she 
dare  produce  the  alleged  evidence  against  her.  The  con- 
ference thus  ended  by  the  withdrawal  of  the  Commissioners, 
it  looked  as  though  the  prosecution  must  fail.  But  Cecil 
was  equal  to  the  occasion.  He  persuaded  Mary's  Com- 
missioners that  the  form  of  their  protest  should  be  amended, 
knowing  full  well  that  it  could  only  be  done  on  consulta- 
tion and  with  loss  of  time.  It  was  amended  and  returned 
on  the  9th  December.  But  meantime,  taking  advantage 
of  their  departure,  he  swiftly  had  Murray  summoned  on 
the  same  day  to  produce  his  proofs.  Murray  appeared,  and, 
safe  in  Elizabeth's  encouragements  and  the  absence  of 
Mary's  Commissioners,  produced  —  not  the  casket-letters, 
but  what  he  called  a  "  Book  of  Articles  "  —  a  collection  of 
all  the  slanders  ever  uttered  against  his  sister,  set  forth  in 
style  and  language  much  after  the  form  of  Buchanan's 
*'  Detection."  Among  them  was  the  Alloa  story,  sailing 
with  pirates,  the  Jedburgh  fable,  notorious  adultery  with 
Bothwell,  the  poisoning  of  Darnley,  etc. 

The  proceedings  of  the  6th  December  closed  with 
Murray's  leaving  in  the  hand  of  the  Commissioners  »..s 
Book  of  Articles,  which  is  as  vile  a  piece  of  composition  as 
the  "  Detection,"  and  that  is  saying  much.  With  calm 
Scotch  indignation,  Mr.  Hosack  thus  comments  on  Murray's 
act :  — 

"  What  are  we  to  think  of  the  man  who  could  thus,  before  a 


254 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


foreign,  and  certainly  not  a  friendly  tribunal,  deliberately  slander 
the  .sister  who  had  loaded  him  with  benefits  V  And  what  are  we 
to  think  of  the  historian  who  invariably  represents  him  to  his 
readers  as  the  purest  of  patriots  and  the  most  unselfish  of  men  ? 
The  prejudices  and  the  profession  of  Robertson  as  a  minister  of 
the  Church  of  Scotland  naturally  induced  him  to  take  the  most 
favorable  view  of  the  character  of  Murray ;  yet  he  does  not 
hesitate  to  condemn,  with  just  severity,  his  ingratitude  to  his 
sister,  his  servility  to  Elizabeth,  and  his  treachery  to  Norfolk. 
Of  modern  historians,  Mr.  Froude  alone  regards  the  Scottish  re- 
gent with  unmixed  admiration." 

On  the  7th  December,^  Murray  reappeared  before  the 
Commissioners,  who,  meantime,  "  heard  the  foresaid  Book 
of  Articles  thoroughly  -red  unto  them  the  night  before," 
and  had  just  again  read  the  three  first  chapters.  Murray 
and  his  colleagues  now  asked  the  Commissioners  to  show 
them  if  in  any  part  of  these  articles  exhibited  they  con- 
ceived any  doubt,  or  would  hear  any  other  proof,  which  they 
trusted  needed  not,  considering  the  circumstances  thereof 
were  for  the  most  notorious  to  the  world."  We  have  seen 
Murray  at  York,  coolly  asking  the  Commissioners  for  an 
assurance  that  they  wo^dd  accept  his  copies  as  proofs. 
Failing  in  this,  he  now  has  what  is  well  styled  "  the  ef- 
frontery" to  ask  them  to  accept,  instead  of  proof,  the  mon- 
strous catalogue  of  unverified  accusations  contained  in  his 
Book  of  Articles  ! 

It  may  well  be  imagined  that  this  proposition  did  not  at 
all  meet  Cecil's  views.  Two  objects  were  to  be  attained 
for  Elizabeth,  the  first  in  accordance  with  the  advice  of 
the  Duke  of  Sussex,  the  second  set  forth  in  Knollys'  letter 
to  Cecil  of  October  20th. 

First,  "  No  end  can  be  made  good  for  England  except 

1  The  minutes  of  the  proceeduigs  of  the  Commissioners  on  the  7th  De- 
cember long  supposed  to  be  lost,  have  lately  been  found  in  the  Record 
Office  by  I\h'.  Hosack,  who  has  also  recovered  the"  Book  of  Articles  from 
among  the  Hopetoun  IMSS.  In  the  present  chapter,  free  use  has  been 
made  of  Mr.  Hosack's  work,  which  presents  the  clearest  and  most  reliable 
account  of  the  proceedings  at  Westminster  yet  written. 


A  SMALL  GILT  COFFER. 


255 


the  person  of  the  Scotch  Queen  be  detained,  by  one  means 
or  other,  in  England." 

Second,  "  I  see  not  how  her  majesty  can  witli  honour 
and  safety  detain  this  Queen,  unless  she  be  utterly  disgraced 
to  the  world,i\.n([  the  contrary  party  be  thereby  maintained." 

The  breach  between  the  Queen  of  Scots  and  the  lords 
must  be  made  irreparable,  and  this  could  only  be  effected 
by  forcing  Murray's  hand  and  compelling  him  to  produce 
his  proofs.  Cecil  therefore  answered  that  the  Commis- 
sioners were  merely  there  to  report  to  her  majesty  "  of 
such  things  as  should  be  on  either  part  produced."  An 
attempt  was  made  to  press  the  Act  of  Parlian^ent  as  suf- 
ficient proof,  but  that  also  fiiiled.  "  Whereupon  the  said 
Earle  and  his  colleagues  pausing  a  while  did  withdraw  them- 
selves." After  some  private  consultation,  they  returned, 
and  with  protestations  of  loyalty  and  affection  towards  their 
sovereign,  they  produced  "  a  small  gilt  coffer,  not  fully  one 
foot  long,  being  garnished  in  many  places  with  the  Ro- 
man letter  F  under  a  crown,  wherein  were  certain  letters 
and  writings,"  etc.,  describing  it  as  the  same  left  by  Both- 
well,  and  sent  for  by  one  George  Dalgleish  "  who  was  taken 
by  the  Earl  of  Morton."  All  this  Morton  there  sitting  as 
one  of  the  Commissioners  avowed  upon  his  oath  to  be 
true,  "  and  the  writings  to  be  the  very  same,  without  any 
manner  of  change." 

This  gilt  coffer  is  of  wonderful  elasticity,  and  as  magical 
in  its  capacity  as  one  of  those  wonderful  receptacles  of 
professional  magicians,  which  contain  anything  you  may 
ask  for.  It  is  averred  upon  the  oath  of  Morton,  that  the 
writings-  are  the  very  same  found  in  it  when  taken  from 
Dalgleish,  "  without  any  manner  of  change."  And  yet, 
this  same  casket  contained,  when  produced  at  York,  two 
papers  not  now  found  in  it.^ 

1  On  Murray's  first  report  to  the  Spanish  Ambassador,  we  had  "  three 
sheets  of  paper,"  then  we  have  reported  "  her  private  letters,"  and  in  due 
course  of  time  the  casket  itself,  the  stanzas,  the  bonds,  and  the  sonnets  ap-' 


256 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


They  then  presented  (outside  the  casket)  two  contracts 
of  marriage,  the  record  of  Bothwell's  trial,  and  the  sen- 
tence of  divorce  between  Both  well  and  his  wife,  and  from 
the  casket  the  two  Glasgow  letters  "  written  in  French^  and 
in  Roman  hand,  which  they  avowed  to  be  a  letter  of  the 
Queen's  own  hand  sent  to  Bothwell." 

On  the  8th  December  were  produced  "seven  several 
writings,  written  in  French,  in  the  like  Roman  hand  — 
and  avowed  by  them  to  be  written  by  the  same  Queen." 
"  Which  seven  writings  being  copied,  were  read  in  French, 
and  a  due  collation  made  thereof,  as  near  as  could,  by  read- 
ing and  inspection,  and  made  to  accord  with  the  originals, 
which  the  said  Earl  of  Murray  required  to  be  redelivered, 
and  did  thereupon  deliver  the  copies  being  collationed." 

Thus  Murray  took  away  the  originals  and  left  copies  only 
for  the  examination  of  the  Commissioners.  But  two  im- 
portant documents  showm  to  the  Commissioners  at  York 
had  now  disappeared.  One  was  the  Queen's  warrant  to 
the  nobility  to  sign  the  Ainslie  bond,  the  other  referring  to 
the  altercation  between  Lord  Robert  Stuart  and  Darnley. 
Both  these  papers,  if  genuine,  were  damaging  to  the  Queen, 
the  bond  in  particular ;  and  the  York  Commissioners  ex- 
pressly reported  that  they  had  seen  proof  in  this  bond, 
"  which  was  now  shown  unto  us,"  that  the  nobles  had  re- 
fused to  sign  the  Ainslie  bond  until  thus  authorized.  The 
fact  of  this  withdrawal  was  significant,  but,  as  Mary  was 
not  represented  in  the  conference,  nothing  was  said  of  the 
suspicious  omission.  And  here  we  close  comment  on  these 
so-called  casket-letters  with  the  admirable  summing-up  of 
a  writer  of  the  last  century  :  — 

"  The  internal,  the  external  evidence  ;  their  variations  in  sub- 
stance, their  variations  in  form,  their  variations  in  words,  and 

pear  gradually  and  successively.  Then  comes  a  diminishing  process  by 
the  withdrawal  of  two  documents  at  York,  and  the  suppression  of  a  letter. 
Yet  all  the  while  it  is  the  same  casket  and  contents  as  found  upon  Dalgleish. 
Truly  a  "juggling  box." 


STRANGE  SCRUTINY. 


257 


their  variations  even  in  language ;  the  history  of  the  rebel  con- 
duct, the  history  of  Elizabeth's  proceedings  at  the  conferences  in 
England  concerning  them ;  their  contradictions  to  facts,  their  re- 
pugnances to  common  sense,  their  inconsistencies  with  chronology, 
and  their  violent  opposition  to  themselves  and  to  each  other,  all 
show  them  to  be  forgeries,  with  an  accumulative  weight  of  testi- 
mony." 

On  the  9th,  the  amended  protest  of  Mary's  Commission- 
ers was  received,  but  they  continued  absent  in  conformity 
with  their  protest.  And  now  we  find  the  English  Commis- 
sioners busy  reading  —  not  the  originals  —  not  French 
copies,  nor  Scotch  translations,  but  copies  "  duly  translated 
into  English."  The  English  versions  of  the  two  Glasgow 
letters  still  in  the  Record  Office,  marked  with  Cecil's  hand, 
are,  almost  certainly,  the  copies  used  by  the  Commissioners. 
Of  the  Scotch  copies  no  more  is  heard.  Nelson  and  Craw- 
ford then  presented  their  written  depositions,  and  the  latter 
recounted  the  conversation  he  had  with  the  Queen  on  her 
coming  to  Glasgow.  These  men  were  neither  questioned  nor 
cross-questioned,  nor  was  any  test  made  of  the  accuracy  of 
their  evidence.  Murray  then  presented  his  journal.  Then 
came  a  pause  in  the  proceedings,  although  not  a  word  has 
yet  been  said  of  the  genuineness  of  the  letters  alleged  to 
be  the  Queen's.  Something  was  suggested  as  to  laying 
the  matter  before  Parliament,  but  it  was  quickly  silenced, 
and  determination  taken  to  submit  the  results  of  the  con- 
ference to  six  noblemen,  who  were  immediately  summoned 
to  Hampton  Court. 

On  the  14th  December,  the  Earls  of  Northumberland, 
Westmoreland,  Shrewsbury,  Worcester,  Huntingdon,  and 
Woolwich  heard,  with  the  Privy  Council,  report  of  the  pro- 
ceedings at  York  and  Westminster,  and  all  Murray's  papers 
were  laid  before  them.  The  casket-letters  were,  according 
to  Cecil's  journal,  "  duly  conferred  and  compared,  for  the 
manner  of  writing  and  fashion  of  orthography  with  sundry 
other  letters,  long  since  heretofore  written  and  sent  by  the 
17 


258 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


said  Queen  of  Scots  to  the  Queen's  majesty,  in  collation  of 
which  no  difference  was  found." 

This  is  the  only  scrutiny  — if  scrutiny  it  can  be  called  — 
these  letters  ever  underwent.  No  one  had  been  allowed 
to  see  these  letters  in  Scotland.  No  one  but  the  English 
Commissioners  had  been  allowed  to  see  them  at  York. 
From  hundreds  of  persons  intimately  acquainted  with  the 
Queen's  handwriting,  scores  of  witnesses  could  have  been 
produced  to  prove  it,  if  hers  it  was. 

Were  these  Earls  the  accomplished  experts  referred  to  ? 
And  in  what  manner  was  their  examination  made  ?  Mr. 
Froude  says,  "  they  were  examined  long  and  minutely  by 
each  and  every  of  the  lords  who  were  present,"  but  does 
not  inform  us  upon  what  authority  his  information  is  based. 
We  prefer  the  testimony  of  a  contemporary  witness,  Cecil, 
Elizabeth's  prime  minister,  the  chief  manager  and  director 
of  such  examination  as  there  was.    He  says:  — 

"  It  is  to  be  noted  that  at  the  time  of  the  producing,  showing, 
and  reading  of  all  those  foresaid  writings,  there  was  no  special 
choice  nor  regard  had  to  the  order  of  the  producing  thereof;  but 
the  whole  writings  lying  altogether  upon  the  council  table,  the 
same  were,  one  after  another,  showed  rather  hy  hap,  as  the  same 
did  lie  upon  the  table,  than  luith  any  choice  made,  as  by  the  na- 
tures thereof,  if  time  had  so  served,  might  have  been." 

In  introducing  these  letters  to  his  reader,  and  forthwith 
incorporating  them  into  his  narrative,  Mr.  Froude  states 
that  they  "  passed  the  keenest  scrutiny  both  in  England 
and  Scotland.  The  handwriting  was  found  to  resemble 
so  exactly  that  of  the  Queen  that  the  most  accomplished 
expert  could  detect  no  difference."  (viii.  362.)  Where  and 
when  was  the  "keenest  scrutiny"  in  Scotland,  and  who 
was  "  the  most  accomplished  expert"  we  are  not  informed. 
The  whole  question  at  issue  is  the  genuineness  of  the  let- 
ters, and  practically,  that  question  is  not  tested  by  any- 
thing of  historical  record. 

The  earls,  with  Cecil  and  the  Privy  Council,  now  de- 


CECIL'S  FURY. 


259 


liberated  as  to  the  testimony  laid  before  them.  The  most 
devoted  servants  of  Elizabeth,  Cecil,  Sadler,  Leicester, 
and  Bacon,  "  declared  themselves  convinced.  Arundel, 
Norfolk,  Clinton,  and  Sussex  contended  that  the  Scottish 
Queen  had  a  right  to  be  heard  in  her  own  defense."  Cecil 
manifested  angry  violence  in  insisting  on  a  condemnation, 
which  was  refused,  and  the  Secretary's  fiiria  terrihile  was 
rebuked  and  checked  by  some  of  the  peers  present.^  Fi- 
nally, no  opinion  was  reached,  while  the  six  earls  thanked 
Queen  Elizabeth  for  imparting  the  matter  to  them,  add- 
ing that  she  was  justified  in  refusing  to  receive  the  Scottish 
Queen  as  the  case  stood. 

All  this  time  Mary  Stuart  was  a  prisoner  far  away  at  Bol- 
ton Castle  in  Yorkshire.  The  winter  was  unusually  early 
and  severe,  and  the  roads  were  blocked  up  with  frozen 
snow.  On  the  19th  of  December,  she  first  heard  of  Murray's 
accusations  made  before  the  Commissioners  on  the  26th 
November,  and  instantly  wrote,  instructing  them  to  renew 
the  conference  which,  by  her  letter  of  November  22d,  she 
had  directed  them  to  break  off,  and  forthwith  to  charge 
the  Earl  of  Moray,  and  his  accomplices,  with  the  murder  of 
the  King,  for,  in  accusing  her  they  had  falsely,  traitorously, 
and  wickedly  lied,  "  imi^uting  unto  us  maliciously  the  crime 
whereof  they  themselves  are  authors,  inventors,  doers,  and 
some  of  them  the  actual  perpetrators."  Further,  she  in- 
structed her  Commissioners  to  demand  "  the  inspection 
and  doubles  (copies)  of  all  they  have  produced  against  us, 
and  that  we  may  see  the  alleged  principal  writings,  if  they 
have  any,  produced,  and,  with  God's  grace,  we  shall  make 
sic  answer  thereto  that  our  innocence  shall  be  known  to 
our  good  sister,  and  to  all  other  princes ; "  and  concludes 
with  instructions  to  charge  her  accusers  "  as  authors  and 

1  "  Dichos  senores  havian  mostrado  algun  valor  y  contrastado  un  poco  la 
fiiria  terribile  con  que  el  Secretario  Cecil  queria  perder  aquella  seiiora." — 
Bimanms  MS.  quoted  by  Lingard. 


260 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


inventors  of  the  said  crime  they  would  impute  to  us," 
holding  herself  ready  to  prove  the  same.^ 

Mary's  instructions  of  December  19th  were  represented 
to  Elizabeth  on  the  25th  of  December,  and  the  Commis- 
sioners repeated  the  request  "to  have  such  writings  as 
were  produced  against  their  mistress."  To  which  Eliza- 
beth —  held  by  many  to  have  been  an  "  admirable  actress  " 
—  replied  that  she  thought  the  request  "  very  reasonable," 
and  was  pleased  to  hear  that  "  her  good  sister  would  make 
answer  in  that  manner  for  the  defense  of  her  honor." 


WESTMINSTER.  —  PART  SECOND. 

"  There  had  been  nothing  sufficiently  produced  nor  shown  by  them 
against  the  Queen  their  sovereign." —  Decision  on  Westininsier  Examina* 
tion. 

The  Queen  of  Scots  at  Lochleven  had  demanded  that 
her  cause  should  be  decided  by  the  Scottish  Parliament. 
At  York  she  asked  for  a  public  investigation  before  Eliza- 
beth, the  whole  of  her  nobility,  and  the  foreign  ambassadors. 
At  Westminster  she  waived  this  right,  and  offered  to  meet 
the  charges  before  the  Commissioners ;  expecting  in  all 
these  cases,  as  a  simple  matter  of  right,  to  be  allowed  in- 
spection of  the  pretended  written  proof  against  her.  But 
all  in  vain. 

1  The  historian  Burton  has  a  new  and  entirely  original  theory  as  to  the 
casket-letters.  It  is  that  they  were  not  at  the  time  of  their  production 
charged  to  be  forgeries.  "It  is  never  distinctly  asserted,"  he  says,  "as  it 
has  so  often  been  in  later  times,  that  the  papers  brought  to  support  these 
charges  were  forged."  This^  is  certainly  a  remarkable  statement  to  make 
in  face  of  the  solemn  declaration  of  thirty-five  prelates  and  peers  of  Scot- 
land, that  these  very  papers  "are  devised  by  themselves  (the  Queen's 
accusers)  in  some  principal  and  substantious  clauses,"  and  in  presence  of 
Mary  Stuart's  own  repeated  declarations  to  the  Commissioners  at  York  and 
at  Westminster,  that  these  papers  "  are  false  and  feigned,  forged  and  invented 
by  themselves  to  my  dishonor  and  slander.^' 


ELIZABETH'S  DEVICE. 


261 


She  now  threw  down  the  bold  challenge  of  an  offer  to 
prove  the  forgery  if  they  would  but  furnish  her  with  copies 
of  the  pretended  letters.  On  the  7th  of  January,  1569, 
another  attempt  was  made  by  Mary's  order  to  obtain  a 
sight  of  the  papers  produced  by  Murray.  Her  Commis- 
sioners informed  Elizabeth  in  person  of  their  mission,  with 
fresh  instructions  to  accuse  Murray  and  the  lords  as  the 
authors,  promoters,  and  perpetrators  of  the  crime  of  which 
they  falsely  accused  her,  and  that  she  "  desired  the  writings 
produced  by  her  rebellious  subjects,  or  at  least  the  copies 
thereof,  to  be  delivered  unto  them,  that  their  mistress  might 
fully  answer  thereto,  as  was  desired."  Now  Elizabeth 
"  was  an  admirable  actress  ;  rarely,  perhaps,  on  the  world's 
stage  has  there  been  a  more  skillful  player,"  and  she  sweetly 
answered  that  she  "  would  take  time  to  consider  the  de- 
mand," and  give  a  reply  in  "  two  or  three  days." 

Meantime  a  well  conceived  and  admirably  arranged  plot 
had  been  devised  to  turn  the  position,  which  was  full  of 
difficulty.  The  prophecy  of  Sussex  had  come  to  pass. 
Mary  had  been  accused  of  Darnley's  murder,  and  she  had 
answered  with  a  demand  of  personal  inspection  of  the  evi- 
dence and  by  charging  her  accusers  of  the  crime.  By 
this  time  Cecil  and  Elizabeth  had  seen  for  themselves  that 
Mary's  proof  would  judicially  fall  best  out,  and  hence  the 
new  scheme,  which  had  apparently  every  element  of  suc- 
cess. It  was  to  induce  Mary  to  resign  her  crown.  Eliza- 
beth begins  by  writing  to  Sir  Francis  KnoUys,  Mary's  jailer, 
to  suggest  it  to  Mary  "  as  if  from  yourself,"  and  to  inform 
Lord  Scrope  "  with  great  secrecy  "  that  he  had  done  so,  as 
Mary  would  doubtless  confer  with  Scrope  on  the  matter. 
Scrope  and  Knollys  had  first  met  Mary  at  Carlisle,  and 
their  reports  to  Elizabeth  show  that  greatly  as  they  admired 
the  Scottish  Queen's  grace,  beauty,  and  accomplishments, 
they  were  more  profoundly  impressed  with  her  high  moral 
and  mental  qualities.  They  describe  her  as  having  "an 
eloquent  tongue  and  a  discreet  head,  with  stout  courage  and 


262 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


a  liberal  heart;"  and  Knollys  afterwards  writes:  "  Surely 
she  is  a  rare  woman,  for  as  no  flattery  can  abuse  her,  so  no 
plain  speech  seems  to  offend  her  if  she  thinks  the  speaker 
an  honest  man."  These  men  had  gained  much  of  Mary's 
confidence,  and  Lady  Scrope  was  the  sister  of  the  Duke 
of  Norfolk,  who  was  then  a  suitor  for  Mary's  hand.  Nor 
was  this  all.  The  Bishop  of  Ross,  Mary's  Commissioner 
and  trusted  adviser,  was  persuaded  by  Elizabeth  and  Cecil 
to  give  his  mistress  such  counsel  as  should  tend  to  the 
furtherance  of  the  cunning  plot.  What  representations 
were  made  by  Cecil  to  the  Bishop,  and  whether  Elizabeth 
played  comedy  or  tragedy  on  the  occasion,  was  never 
known. 

The  trap  is  ready  and  there  was  nothing  now  to  be  done 
but  drive  in  the  hunted  hare.  Thus  it  was  managed.  Eliz- 
abeth writes  a  letter  to  Mary  full  of  sympathy,  earnestly 
entreating  her  for  the  sake  of  her  own  honor  to  make 
answer  to  the  charges  which  were  presented  against  her. 
To  this  is  added  a  chapter  in  praise  of  the  Bishop  of  Ross, 
his  fidelity,  intelligence,  and  zeal,  "  for  in  our  judgment, 
we  think  ye  have  not  any  in  loyalty  and  faithfulness  can 
overmatch  him." 

Now  hear  Knollys.  On  the  26th  December  he  reports 
to  Elizabeth  a  conversation  with  Mary  in  which  she  com- 
plained that  Elizabeth  had  broken  her  promise  by  allowing 
Murray  to  appear  at  Westminster,  while  she  was  detained 
a  prisoner  at  Bolton  Castle.  That  on  receipt  of  her  maj- 
esty's letter  of  the  22d,  "  with  a  memorial  of  certain  rea- 
sons to  induce  this  Queen  to  resign  her  crown  to  her  son," 
he  "  entered  into  conference  with  her,  and  said,  '  If  you 
shall  deny  to  answer  thereby  you  shall  provoke  the  Queen 
my  mistress  to  take  you  as  condemned,  and  to  publish  the 
same  to  your  utter  disgrace  and  infamy,  especially  in 
England  of  all  other  places  ; '  and  after  tiiis  sort  I  began 
to  strike  as  gr^eat  terror  into  her  as  I  could." 

Mary  Stuart  guilty  must  have  been  intimidated,  but 


GALLANTLY  AT  BAY. 


263 


Mary  Stuart  innocent  was  not  in  the  slightest  degree 
alarmed.  She  answered  stoutly,"  continues  Knollys,  "  as 
she  Avould  make  all  other  princes  know  how  evil  she  was 
handled,  coming  upon  trust  into  this  realm  ;  and  saith  she, 
'  1  am  sure  the  Queen  will  not  condemn  me,  hearing  only 
mine  adversaries^  and  not  me.'  "  Knollys  then  advised  her 
that  the  best  way  to  save  her  honor,  and  put  an  end  to  the 
charges  made  against  her  was  to  offer  the  resignation  of 
her  crown  to  her  son,  "  she  herself  to  remain  in  England  a 
convenient  time."  Nobody  better  than  Elizabeth  knew 
how  easily  Mary  could  be  deceived  and  betrayed  under  the 
mask  of  friendship.  It  came  to  pass  precisely  as  she  had 
foreseen,  that  Mary,  deprived  of  friends  and  counsel,  would 
con§de  in  Lord  Scrope.  We  continue  Knolly's  report  : 
"  In  the  afternoon  she  began  to  speak  with  my  Lord  Scrope, 
and  she  told  him  what  advice  I  had  given  her  herein. 
'  And  surely,'  saith  she,  '  I  think  he  doth  not  thus  advise 
me  to  the  intent  I  should  be  entrapped  and  abused.' 
And  my  Lord  Scrope,  being  made  privy  by  me  beforehand, 
did  also  very  secretly  persuade  her  in  friendly  manner 
accordingly ;  and  although  she  is  too  wise  hastily  to  be 
persuaded  in  such  a  case  as  this  is,  yet  Lord  Scrope  and  I 
are  in  some  hopes  that  if  the  Bishop  of  Ross  at  his  com- 
ing will  secretly  persuade  her  hereunto,  that  she  will  yield 
herein." 

The  Bishop  of  Ross  did  not  come,  but  wrote  a  letter  to 
Mary,  which  she  received  four  days  after  the  conversation 
with  Knollys  and  Scrope.  On  the  31st  of  December  Mary 
again  conversed  with  Knollys  and  Scrope,  listened  to  all 
they  had  to  advance  in  favor  of  her  resignation,  and  re- 
plied that  she  would  give  them  an  answer  in  two  days. 
She  had  heard  all  they  had  to  say  with  attention  and  her 
never  failing  courtesy ;  they  knew  that  she  accepted  it  as 
friendly  advice  ;  and  they  were  fully  advised  that  they  had 
been  powerfully  seconded  by  the  Bishop  of  Ross.  They 
felt  certain  she  must  yield.   And  why  should  she  not  yield  ? 


264 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


Dethroned,  imprisoned,  hunted  down  by  calumny  and  per- 
secution, without  hope  from  France,  for  Catherine  de 
Medicis  was  her  bitter  enemy ;  without  hope  from  Spain, 
for  Philip  had  not  forgiven  her  refusal  to  sign  the  Catholic 
League ;  without  a  friend  to  whom  she  might  turn  for  coun- 
sel, since  her  long  trusted  advocate  Leslie  himself  advised 
the  resignation,  —  how  could  she  possibly  avoid  it  ?  Pining 
for  freedom  and  for  peace,  and  told  that  her  resignation 
would  insure  them,  we  might  naturally  suppose  that  there 
could  be  for  the  matter  but  the  one  solution  sought  by 
Elizabeth. 

Mary  had  nought  to  consult  but  her  own  honor,  her  own 
clear  head,  and  her  own  stout  heart.  She  had  promised  an 
answer  in  two  days  from  the  30th  December.  She  was 
ready  with  it  at  the  time  indicated.  This  it  was.  She  told 
Knollys  and  Scrope  that  she  would  not  resign,  and  would 
prefer  death  to  the  ignominious  terms  proposed.  To  London 
she  wrote  :  "  As  to  my  resignation,  I  entreat  you  to  trouble 
me  no  further  concerning  it,  for  I  am  deliberately  resolved 
to  die  sooner  than  give  it ;  and  the  last  words  I  shall  utter 
in  my  life  shall  be  those  of  a  Queen  of  Scotland  "  et  la 
derniere  parole  que  je  ferai  en  ma  vie  sera  d'une  Reyne 
d'Ecosse").  To  her  Commissioners  she  wrote  the  instruc- 
tions which  we  have  already  seen  were  represented  to 
Elizabeth  on  the  7th  of  January.^  From  first  to  last,  Mary 
never  suspected  the  part  played  by  these  two  English 
noblemen,  Knollys  and  Scrope,  and  she  left  Bolton  Castle 
believing  they  had  acted  in  the  matter  solely  as  her 
friends. 

On  the  manner  in  which  Mr.  Froude  has  treated  this 
important  incident  we  refrain  from  comment,  but  at  the 
same  time  very  strongly  recommend  the  reader  to  give  his 
version  of  it  an  attentive  persual. 

1  "  Cecil  had  been  led  to  believe  that  his  scheme  would  prove  successful, 
and  that  with  his  pack  of  treacherous  Scots  and  servile  colleagues  he  had 
fairly  hunted  down  his  quarry.  But  she  stood  gallantly  at  bay  and  bade  him 
do  his  worst."  —  HosacJc,  p.  460. 


PROSECUTION  FAILS. 


265 


Cecil's  disappointment  can  well  be  imagined.  The  posi- 
tion was  embarrassing  in  the  highest  degree.  On  the  9th 
of  Jannary  (Sunday)  he  suddenly  summoned  Mary's  Com- 
missioners to  meet  him.  They  came,  and  found  the  Earls 
of  Leicester,  Arundel,  and  Pembroke,  and  the  Duke  of 
Norfolk  with  him.  Cecil  brought  up  the  question  of  Mary's 
resignation  for  discussion,  which  was  closed  by  the  declara- 
tion of  the  Commissioners  that  the  Queen  of  Scots  "  would 
never  consent  to  resign  her  crown  in  any  way,  nor  upon 
any  condition." 

On  the  30th  of  December  Knollys  and  Scrope,  as  we  have 
seen,  were  promised,  "  in  two  days,"  an  answer  by  Mary. 
Of  course  they  received  it  as  promised.  On  the  7th  of 
January  Mary's  Commissioners,  as  we  have  seen,  were  prom- 
ised an  answer  by  Elizabeth  "  in  two  or  three  days."  Of 
course  they  did  not  receive  it,  for  on  the  10th  of  January, 
instead  of  furnishing  the  promised  "  copies,"  Murray  and 
his  colleagues  were  summoned  to  Hampton  Court,  informed 
by  Cecil  that  "  forasmuch  as  there  had  been  nothing  pro- 
duced against  them,  as  yet,  that  may  impair  their  honor 
or  allegiance  ;  and,  on  the  other  part,  there  had  been 

NOTHING  SUFFICIENTLY  PRODUCED  NOR  SHOWN  BY  THEM 

AGAINST  THE  QuEEN  THEIR  SOVEREIGN,  whereby  the  Queeu 
of  England  should  conceive  or  take  any  evil  ojnnion  of  the 
Queen  her  good  sister  for  anything  yet  seen  ;  ^  and  there  being 
alleged  by  the  Earl  of  Murray  the  unquiet  state  and  dis- 
order of  the  realm  of  Scotland,  now  in  his  absence,  her 
majesty  thinketh  meet  not  to  restrain  any  further  the  said 
earl  and  his  adherents'  liberty,  but  suffer  him  and  them 
at  their  pleasure  to  depart,"  etc. 

This  has  well  been  called  an  "astounding  announce- 
ment." And  yet  it  may  be  said  that  the  declaration  is, 
practically,  the  fulfillment  of  Elizabeth's  promise  to  furnish 
copies  of  the  evidence  against  Mary,  inasmuch  as  it  de- 
clares this  evidence  to  be  worthless.  The  case  made 
1  These  last  four  words  added  by  Elizabeth. 


266 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


against  Mary  lias  been  heard,  and  is,  by  this  solution,  ad- 
mitted to  have  fallen  to  the  ground.  But  Murray  and  his 
associates  are  now  accused.  That  alters  the  case,  for  there 
is  no  intention  to  hear  any  testimony  against  them,  as  was 
clearly  shown  on  the  following  day  (January  11th),  when, 
in  presence  of  Murray  and  his  associates,  Cecil  asked 
Mary's  Commissioners  if  they  would  accuse  Murray  and 
his  colleagues  of  the  murder  of  Darnley.  They  replied 
that  they  were  expressly  commandedhy  their  mistress  so  to  do, 
and  likewise  to  answer  the  calumnies  against  herself,  pro- 
vided they  were  furnished  with  "  copies  of  the  pretended 
writings  given  in  against  their  mistress,  which  they  divers 
times  required  of  the  Queen's  majesty  and  her  council^  but 
they  have  not  as  yet  obtained  the  same  /  and  how  soon  {as 
soon  as)  they  received  the  copies  thereof,  she  would  answer 
thereto  in  defense  of  her  innocence." 

To  this  there  came  no  answer  from  Cecil,  except  such 
reply  as  could  be  found  in  his  immediately,  within  twenty- 
four  hours  thereafter  (January  12th),  according  Murray 
and  his  friends  formal  leave  to  depart.  And  thus  the 
Regent  hurried  off  to  Scotland  with  his  box  of  letters,  and 
a  reward  of  five  thousand  pounds  sterling,  "  for  attempting 
to  destroy  his  sister's  character  by  means  of  proofs  which 
Elizabeth,  by  the  mouth  of  her  secretary,  declared  to  be 
absolutely  worthless."    (Hosack,  p.  467.) 

On  the  13th  of  January,  Mary's  Commissioners  again 
presented  themselves  at  Hampton  Court,  and  reiterated 
their  demand  for  copies  of  the  papers  produced  against 
their  Queen.  Cecil,  now,  had  a  new  device  to  obtain 
delay.  It  was,  that  the  request  could  only  be  complied 
with  on  condition  that  their  Queen  signed  an  agreement 
"promising  that  she  would  answer  to  the  said  writings  and 
articles  laid  to  her  charge  without  any  exception."  Thus, 
on  the  10th  of  January,  he  declares  that  the  charges 
against  her  are  groundless,  that  nothing  had  been  proved 
against  her.   On  the  12th  of  January  he  authorizes  Murray 


0 


RECOIL  FROM  INQUIRY. 


267 


to  depart  with  his  worthless  proofs,  and  on  the  next  day 
he  requires  Murk's  written  promise  to  answer  the  charges 
thus  dechired  groundK\ss,  on  proofs  found  worthless,  and 
sent  out  of  the  way !  The  answer  of  the  Commissioners 
was  short,  sharp,  and  decisive.  The  Queen  of  Scots,  said 
they,  had  already  in  two  writings,  signed  by  herself,  and 
shown  to  the  Queen  of  England,  declared  herself  ready  to 
uiake  answer  whenever  she  was  furnished  with  the  papers 
produced  against  her,  or  even  with  copies.  This  crushing 
statement  they  followed  up  with  complaint  that  Murray 
and  his  associates,  although  accused  by  their  mistress  with 
the  murder  of  her  husband,  had  been  allowed  to  return  to 
Scotland.  Cecil,  in  reply,  had  not  another  word  to  say 
about  the  written  promise  from  Mary,  and  remarked  that 
as  to  Murray,  he  had  promised  to  return  if  his  presence 
should  be  required  at  any  time,  "  but  in  the  mean  time," 
he  added,  "the  Queen  of  Scotland  could  not  be  suffered 
to  depart,  for  divers  respects."  In  other  words,  the 
charges  against  her,  admitted  by  themselves  to  be  ground- 
less, should  be  taken  as  true,  and  she  should  be  held  a 
prisoner  in  any  event.  The  proceedings  then  closed  with 
a  notarial  protest  of  Mary's  Commissioners  against  her 
detention,  while  the  rebel  lords  were  allowed  to  return  to 
Scotland. 

The  reader  thus  clearly  sees  —  unless  he  accepts  rhet- 
oric and  invention  for  documentary  evidence  —  that  it  was 
Elizabeth,  Cecil,  and  Murray  —  not  Mary  Stuart,  who, 
says  Hume,  "recoiled  from  the  inquiry  at  the  very  critical 
moment  when  a  scrutiny  was  demanded  of  their  evidence, 
and  when  the  truth  could  have  been  fully  cleared,"  and 
that,  by  so  doing,  they  have  ratified  every  argument  and 
proof  of  forgery  that  is  now  brought  against  the  casket- 
letters. 

The  attention  of  the  reader  is  requested  to  the  de- 
vice of  Mr.  Froude  in  placing  his  mangled  -account  of 
the  proceedings  of  January  13  (p.  390)  before  Cecil's 


268 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


declaration  of  January  10  (p.  391),  concealing  the  date 
of  that  declaration,  and  thus  making  a  hopeless  muddle 
of  his  already  confused  narration.  It  is  constantly  insinu- 
ated that  Mary  had  no  real  desire,  nor  did  she  make  any 
serious  attempt  to  obtain  copies  of  the  casket-letters.  We 
have  seen  what  efforts  she  has  made  to  obtain  them,  and 
here  is  another. 

Mary  now  laid  before  the  French  Ambassador  at 
London  an  account  of  her  fruitless  efforts  to  obtain,  at 
least,  copies  of  the  papers  produced  by  Murray,  and  the 
Ambassador  (La  Mothe  Fenelon)  expressed  to  Eliza- 
beth his  hope  and  belief  that  she  would  see  justice  done 
between  the  Scottish  Queen  and  her  rebellious  subjects, 
and  that  she  would  cause  the  papers  which  they  had 
produced  at  Westminster  to  be  furnished  her.^  Fenelon 
says  that  she  listened  to  him  with  visible  emotion,  and 
promised  that  on  the  following  day  the  writings  should 
be  placed  in  the  hands  of  Mary's  Commissioners.  (Que 
le  lendemain  elle  accorderait  aux  depputez  de  la  dicte 
dame  la  dicte  communication.)  Now,  Elizabeth  "  was 
an  admirable  actress,"  and  having  played  her  little 
part  for  the  day,  thought  no  more  of  Fenelon  or  of 
Mary  Stuart.  Patient  and  polite,  the  French  Ambassa- 
dor waited  not  one  day  but  ten  days,  and  on  the  30th  of 
January  took  occasion  to  remind  the  English  Queen  of 
her  promise.  "The  accomplished  actress,"  on  this  occa- 
sion also  showed  "  visible  emotion,"  and,  having  her  cue 
from  Cecil,  flew  into  a  passion,  asserting  that  Mary  had 
written  a  letter  to  some  one  complaining  of  her  gross 
partiality  at  the  conferences,  and  charging  Murray  with 
designs  upon  her  crown,  etc.  It  appears  to  be  doubtful 
that  such  a  letter  was  ever  written  by  Mary.    But  if  it  had 

1-  With  daring  intrepidity  of  statement  Mr.  Froude  assures  his  reader 
(.ix.  400),  that  Mary  "  did  everything  in  her  power  to  prevent  them  (the 
letters)  from  being  examined."  In  so  doing,  he  simply  furnishes  his  own 
explanation  of  his  reasons  for  deliberately  suppressing  her  reiterated  de- 
mand to  meet  and  answer  them. 


THE  REACTION. 


2G9 


been,  it  does  not  afTect  tlie  absurdity  of  Elizabeth's  pretext, 
nor  the  inexcusable  grossiiess  of  her  demeanor. 

The  result  of  the  proceedings  was,  necessarily,  a  strong 
reaction  in  favor  of  Mary.  It  was  plain  there  was  no 
proof  against  her.  The  majority  of  the  English  Commis- 
sioners had  been  satisfied  of  the  worthlessness  of  the 
casket-letters.  The  Duke  of  Norfolk,  who  was  of  both 
conferences,  York  and  Westminster,  was  anxious  to  obtain 
Mary  Stuart's  hand,  and  the  Earls  of  Northumberland  and 
Westmoreland  found  in  them  proof  of  but  one  thing,  and 
that  was  Murray's  utter  vileness.  But  a  few  weeks  later, 
and  we  find  among  the  open  supporters  of  Mary  the  Earls 
of  Arundel,  Westmoreland,  Pembroke,  Northumberland, 
Southampton,  Derby,  Sussex,  and  Cumberland,  the  Lords 
Clinton  and  Lumley,  the  Marquis  of  Winchester,  and  Sir 
Nicholas  Throckmorton,  the  majority  of  whom  devoted 
the  remainder  of  their  lives  to  her  cause. 

Northumberland  and  Westmoreland  were  fully  advised 
of  the  indignation  of  the  best  men  of  the  north  at  Murray's 
infamous  conduct.  Hence  they  made  no  objection  what- 
ever to  a  resolution  of  the  leading  gentry  of  Durham  and 
Yorkshire  to  attack  Murray  and  his  band  on  their  return 
to  Scotland.  But  the  wily  Regent  had  a  cunning  device. 
He  threw  himself  into  Norfolk's  way,^  wormed  himself  into 
his  confidence  with  protestations  of  friendship  to  himself 
and  regard  for  his  sister,  and  through  Norfolk  obtained  from 
Westmoreland  a  safe  conduct  through  the  northern  coun- 
ties, —  Westmoreland  having  previously  inquired  of  Mary 
Stuart  if  she  consented  to  it,  which  she  unhesitatingly  did. 
Norfolk  was  completely  deceived  by  Murray,  gave  him  his 
whole  confidence,  and  at  parting  said :  "  P^arl  of  Murray, 
thou  hast  Norfolk's  life  in  thy  hands."  Prophetically  and 
sadly  true.  He  had  Norfolk's  life  in  his  hands,  and  he 
basely  betrayed  it  to  Elizabeth. 

1  We  are  aware  that  Mr.  Froude  says  "he  consented  to  an  interview," 
but  that  is  of  no  consequence  by  the  side  of  Murray's  own  account  of  the 
meeting. 


CHAPTER  XXIII. 


CAPTIVITY. 

"  Now  blooms  the  lily  by  the  bank, 
The  primrose  on  the  brae ; 
The  hawthorn 's  budding  in  the  glen, 

And  milk-white  is  the  slae; 
The  meanest  hind  in  fair  Scotland 

May  rove  their  sweets  amang, 
But  I,  the  Queen  o'  a'  Scotland, 
Maun  lie  in  prison  Strang." 

Robert  Burns. 

Mary  Stuart's  position  on  the  termination  of  the  West- 
minster Conference  cannot  be  better  described  than  she 
herself  in  terms  of  truthful  eloquence  stated  it  in  a  letter 
addressed  to  Elizabeth,  January  22,  1569  :  — 

"  I  cannot  but  deplore  my  evil  fortune,  seeing  you  have  been 
pleased  not  only  to  deny  me  your  presence,  causing  me  to  be  de- 
clared unworthy  of  it  by  your  nobles,  but  suffered  me  also  to  be 
torn  to  pieces  by  my  rebels  Avithout  making  reply  to  what  I  had 
alleged  against  them ;  neither  allowing  me  to  have  copies  of  their 
false  accusations,  nor  opportunity  to  disprove  them  ;  permitting  them 
to  retire,  virtually  absolving  them,  and  confirming  them  in  their 
usurped,  pretended  regency,  and  covertly  throwing  the  blame  on 
me,  by  condemning  me  unheard,  detaining  my  ministers,  and  or- 
dering me  to  be  removed  by  force,  without  being  informed  what 
has  been  resolved  on  my  atfixirs,  why  I  am  to  be  sent  to  another, 
place,  when  I  shall  be  allowed  to  depart,  how  I  am  to  be  treated, 
nor  for  what  purpose  I  am  detained  —  all  support  denied,  and 
my  requests  refused." 

The  queenly  prisoner  was  forced  to  quit  Bolton  Castle  in 
midwinter,  for  her  new  prison  at  Tutbury.  Mary  and  her 
friend  Lady  Livingstone,  the  voluntary  companion  of  her 


THE  LIVINGSTONES. 


271 


exile,  were  botli  sick  and  were  t^ken  in  a  litter,  the  other 
ladies  travelled  on  horseback.  It  was  a  desolate  and  dreary 
journey  of  eight  days  over  wretched  roads  ;  and  Lady  Liv- 
ingstone was  left  at  Kotherhani,  too  sick  to  proceed.  This 
is  the  Lady  Livingstone  at  whose  house  Mary  passed  a 
night  on  her  way  from  Edinburgh  to  Glasgow  to  visit 
Darnley,  and  with  whom  she  previously  spent  a  day  in  or- 
der to  be  present  as  godmother  at  the  baptism  of  Lady 
Livinostone's  child.  In  the  first  forored  Glasgow  letter,  her 
husband,  Lord  Livingstone,  is  described  "  at  supper  "  jest- 
ing with  Lady  Reres  in  the  Queen's  presence  on  the  guilty 
intimacy  of  the  latter  with  Bothwell,  bantering  the  Queen 
on  her  fondness  for  Bothwell,  and  on  her  visiting  her 
sick  husband,  at  vvliich  pleasantries  the  Queen  is  made 
to  express  herself  pleased  and  flattered,  to  lean  upon  him 
bodily  at  the  fireside,  and  ask  him  to  whom  he  refers,  to 
which  Livingstone  in  reply,  —  she  is  made  to  write, — 
"  thristit  her  body  ;  "  that  is  to  say,  "  nudged  her  majesty 
in  the  ribs."  ^  Comment  is  not  needed.  Lord  and  Lady 
Livingstone  w^ere  both  Protestants  ;  they  both  followed  Mary 
Stuart  into  exile,  and  shared  her  exile  and  misfortune  to 
the  last.  It  may  here  be  remarked  that  numbers  of  the 
ladies  of  the  Scotch  aristocracy  earnestly  entreated  of 
Elizabeth  permission  to  wait  upon  Mary  in  her  prison. 
Amona  them  were  the  wife  and  dauojhter  of  the  Earl  of 
Atholl,  Lady  Lethington,  and  the  two  ladies  Mowbray, 
daughters  of  the  rebel  laird  of  Barnbogle.^ 

1  "  The  colors  are  too  glaring  and  too  gross.  Not  only  is  the  Queen  rep- 
resented with  the  morals  of  a  Messalina,  and  with  manners  that  would  dis- 
grace a  kitchen  wench,  but  she  actuall}'  describes  to  her  paramour  her 
suspicious  familiarities  with  another  man."  —  Hosnch,  p.  199. 

2  "  It  must  be  obvious  to  common  sense,  that  if  Mary  had  been  so  lost  to 
shame  and  decency  as  her  libelcr,  Buclianan,  pretends,  and  the  forged  let- 
ters infer,  her  service  would  have  been  deserted  in  disgust  by  every  noble 
Scotch  lady,  especially  those  who  were  of  the  reformed  faith.  Can  it  be 
supposed  that  a  man  of  Lord  Livingstone's  high  rank  and  unsullied  honor, 
a  leading  member  of  the  Congregation  withal,  would  have  ruined  his 
fortune  and  outraged  conscituice  and  propriety  by  supporting  her  cause, 


272 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


In  stating  (ix.  458)  tlie  proposition  made  to  Mary  with 
the  approval  of  Cecil  and  Elizabeth,  Mr.  Froude  forgets 
to  add  the  names  of  Norfolk  and  Arundel  to  those  of 
Pembroke  and  Leicester,  as  its  originators,  and  studioiisly 
conceals  the  extraordinary  inducement  held  out  to  her  to 
accejDt  the  conditions  proposed.  It  was  that  Mary  should 
be  restored  as  Queen  of  Scotland,  and  be  confirmed  in  her 
claim  as  next  in  successio?i  to  the  crown  of  England.  True, 
he  says  that  "  if  she  should  not  ratify  .the  treaty  of  Leith, 
it  should  not  be  insisted  on"  (ix.  457),  from  which,  in 
strictness,  may  possibly  be  drawn  the  conclusion  that  her 
succession  to  the  English  crown  is  admitted,  although  the 
concealment  on  the  historian's  part  is  elaborate.  Small 
wonder  that  he  makes  this  desperate  effort ;  small  wonder 
that  this  matter  troubles  him  so  deeply.  This  proposition 
made  by  the  four  earls,  "  conceived  in  a  spirit  of  undoubted 
loyalty  to  Elizabeth,"  and  composed  by  Cecil  himself  (ix. 
459),  was  warmly  supported  by  the  Earls  of  Shrewsbury, 
Northumberland,  Westmoreland,  and  Bedford,  and  Sir 
Nicholas  Throckmorton,  the  leading  nobility  and  states- 
men of  England.  The  two  last  named  knew  Mary  well, 
and  Bedford,  as  we  have  seen,  was  in  Scotland  just  before 
Darnley's  murder,  and  these  men  declared  themselves  not 
ouly  in  favor  of  restoring  Mary  to  her  throne,  but  as  ready 
to  recognize  her  as  heir  presumptive  of  the  English  crown} 

and  permitting  his  beautiful  and  virtuous  wife,  the  mother  of  his  children, 
to  wait  upon  her,  share  her  perils  and  her  wanderings,  and  pai-take  her 
prisons  without  reward,  had  there  been  the  slightest  grounds  for  the  odious 
accusations  with  which  the  traitors  who  had  murdered  her  husband,  given 
her  over  as  a  prey  to  Bothweli,  and  usurped  her  throne,  sought  to  justify 
their  proceedings  and  cloak  their  own  crimes?  " — Miss  Strickland's  Mary, 
vol.  vi.  p.  326. 

1  "  It  is  obvious,"  says  Mr.  Hosack,  "  that  their  conduct  at  this  time  can 
admit  of  only  two  explanations.  Every  one  of  the  men  who  gave  his 
assent  to  the  proposal  made  to  the  Scottish  Queen,  had,  with  the  exception 
of  Throckmorton,  a  very  short  time  before  seen,  either  at  Westminster  or  at 
Hampton  Court,  the  whole  of  the  evidence  produced  against  her;  and  if  the}' 
believed  it  to  be  genuine,  they  were  so  utterly  lo-t  to  all  sense  of  honor  and 
shame  as  to  recommend  that  a  murderers  of  4 he  worst  description  should 


UV.Ul  PRESUMPTIVE. 


273 


Some  twenty  pages  later,  Mr.  Fronde  is  forced  into  an 
acknowledgment  —  still  veiled  —  of  the  readiness  in  i^ng- 
land  to  acknowledge  his  "  nuu  deress  of  Kirk  o'  Field,"  his 
''ferocions  animal,"  his  "snake,"  his  "panther,"  his  "wild- 
cat," his  "  brnte,"  as  the  coming  Queen  of  England  !  He 
stales  (ix.  477)  :  — 

"  Still  the  stream  ran  so  violently,  that  on  the  27th  of  August 
a  vote  was  carried  in  full  council  for  the  settlement  of  the  suc- 
cession by  the  marriage  of  the  Queen  of  Scots  to  some  English 
nobleman ;  and  many  peers,  according  to  Don  Gueran,  the  great- 
est in  the  land,  set  their  hands  to  a  bond  to  stand  by  Norfolk  in 
carrying  the  resolution  into  effect." 

What  was  thought  in  F'rance,  Spain,  and  Italy,  of 
Mary's  innocence,^  may  be  deduced  from  the  facts  that 
"  France  already  had  its  eye  upon  her,  as  a  fit  match, 
could  she  escape,  for  the  Duke  of  Anjou"  (ix.  484)  ;  Philip 
of  Spain  was  desirous  of  bringing  about  her  marriage  with 
his  brother,  Don  John  of  Austria,  soon  to  be  the  victor  of 
Lepanto  ;  and  Cosmo  de  Medici  was  advised  from  Lon- 
don, "  That  it  was  known  to  all  without  the  slightest  doubt 
that  she  was  most  innocent,  and  that  her  accusers  were 
guilty  of  the  deed."  (Labanoff,  vol.  vii.  p.  147.) 

Inadvertently,  our  historian  occasionally  lets  in  a  ray  of 
light,  as,  where  he  says  :  "  Unfortunately  for  Mary  Stuart's 

be  acknowledged  as  the  successor  of  their  sovereign.  If,  on  the  other  hand, 
they  gave,  like  Elizabeth,  no  credit  to  the  unverified  accusations  of  Mary's 
enemies,  their  conduct  is  sufficiently  explained.  On  which  side  the  proba- 
bility lies  the  reader  will  determine  for  himself."  —  Hosack,  p.  482. 

1  Mr.  Fronde's  curious  infelicity  of  translation  again  appears  here.  He 
makes  Elizabeth  say  to  the  Spanish  Ambassador  (ix.  272),  that  Mary's 
"  ncf/uiltnl  should  be  so  contrived  that  a  shadow  of  guilt  should  be  allowed 
to  remain;  ....  to  declare  her  entirely  innocent  would  be  dangerous,"  etc. 
But  declare  her  innocent  does  not  correctly  translate  it.  Si  se  declaraba  su 
innocencin  is  the  Spanish.  To  declare  a  person's  innocence  is  a  very  dif- 
ferent thing  from  declaring  that  he  or  she  is  innocent.  Elizabeth  knew 
Mary's  innocence,  but  hesitated  to  declare  it.  She  might  declare  her  inno- 
ceyit,  knowing  her  to  be  guilty.  "Acquittal"  and  "shadow  of  guilt"  are 
not  in  the  Spanish.  To  leave  a  ca«e  in  doubt  (en  duhio)  is  not  to  leave 
a  shadow  of  guilt  upon  it,  and  justijicacion  is  not  acquitted. 
18 


274 


MAEY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


prospects,  she  had  too  many  friends.  France  and  Spain 
both  wished  her  well,  but  could  not  trust  each  other,"  etc. 
(X.  48.) 

Mary's  answer  to  the  proposition  was,  Mr.  Froude  says, 
"graceful,  dignified,  self-respecting;"  but  his  handsome 
compliment  is  more  than  neutralized  by  his  ruthless  ex- 
posure of  what  was  passing  in  her  mind  at  the  time,  and 
an  enumeration  of  the  wicked  projects  she  formed.  "  The 
part  was  well  played,"  he  tells  us  (ix.  462).  Alas  !  it  is 
impossible  to  contend  with  such  an  adversary  as  this. 
You  may  prove  —  contemporary  documents  and  abundant 
testimony  in  hand,  a  -|-  b  —  a  certain  state  of  fact  as  to  — 
Mary  Stuart,  for  instance.  You  and  your  documents  are 
contemptuously  thrust  aside  with  a  psychological  diagnosis, 
and  the  historian  passes  on  to  glorify  Drake's  piracy, 
Elizabeth's  money-making  in  the  slave-trade,  or  Cecil's 
Christian  statesmanship  at  the  Tower. 

By  the  time  the  scales  had  fallen  from  Mary's  eyes,  Eliz- 
abeth's art  and  duplicity  had  woven  a  web  from  which  she 
could  not  be  extricated.  Her  remaining  years  of  life 
were  one  long,  heart-sickening  struggle  against  treachery, 
spies,  insult  to  her  person,  her  reputation,  and  her  faith  ;^ 
confinement,  cold,  sickness,  neuralgic  agony,  want ;  depri- 
vation of  all  luxuries,  of  medical  attendance,  and  of  the 
consolations  of  religion.  At  every  fresh  spasm  of  alarm 
on  the  part  of  Elizabeth,  Mary's  prison  was  changed.^ 
This,  too,  frequently  in  dead  of  winter,  and  generally  with- 
out any  provision  for  the  commonest  conveniences  of  life. 
More  than  once,  taken  into  a  naked,  cold  castle,  Mary "s 
jailers  had  to  rely  on  the  charity  of  the  neighbors  for  even 
a  bed  for  their  royal  prisoner.    At  Tutbury,  her  rooms 

1  She  wrote  from  Tutbur}'  (November,  1571)  to  F^nelon,  the  French  Am- 
bassador, "  I  had  begged  for  a  priest  to  administer  the  holy  sacrament  and 
to  help  me  relieve  my  conscience  in  this  condition  of  mine;  and  they  who 
carried  my  letter  brought  me  instead  of  consolation  the  diffamatory  book  of 
the  atheist  George  Buchanan. 

2  For  a  list  of  her  English  prisons  see  Appendix  No.  10. 


VERDICT  ON  THE  EVIDENCE. 


275 


were  so  dark  and  comfortless,  and  the  surroundings  so 
filthy  —  there  is  no  other  word  for  it  —  that  the  English 
physician  refused  to  charge  himself  with  her  health.  But 
enough.    All  know  the  sad  story. 

Any  fair  recital  of  Mary  Stuart's  life  during  her  long 
imprisonment  strongly  negatives  the  worst  case  that  can  be 
made  against  her.  The  elevated  qualities  she  displayed 
during  these  nineteen  years  have  challenged  the  sympathiz- 
ing admiration  of  posterity.  "  The  most  amiable  of  women," 
as  Hume  styles  her,  was  here  truly  grand  in  her  dignity, 
her  fortitude,  and  her  resignation.  It  was  the  contempla- 
tion of  this  spectacle  which*"  so  affected  the  historian  Rob- 
ertson that,  although,  on  insufficient  data,  he  accepts  the 
theory  of  her  guilt,  he  yet,  by  a  seeunng  singular  inconsis- 
tency, enlists  our  synipathies  for  her  as  one  who  died  the 
death  of  the  innocent.  But  mere  admiration  for  her  noble 
nature,  compassion  for  her  sufferings,  indignation  at  her 
persecutors,  and  pity  for  her  fate,  are  not  asked  for  on  an 
appeal  for  merely  a  just  verdict  on  the  evidence.  In  ask- 
ing this  we  would  eliminate  the  mawkish  palliative  of 
loose  talk,  touching  the  influence  of  the  so-called  "  school 
of  Catherine  de  Medici,"  and  we  would  even  consent  to  set 
aside  the  really  extenuating  facts  of  her  extreme  youth, 
inexperience,  and  friendlessness  amid  the  treasonable  plots 
of  the  titled  villains  by  whom  she  was  surrounded  and  be- 
trayed. The  cause  of  Mary  Stuart  is  sufficiently  strong 
to  cliallenge  the  decision  of  the  sternest  justice  divorced 
from  mere  sympathy. 

But,  although  Mr.  Fronde's  "History"  has  been  lauded 
for  "its  broad  charity,  its  tender  human  sympathy,  its  ever 
present  dignity,  its  outbursts  of  truest  pathos,"  —  although 
the  historian  has  spoken  in  such  eloquent  terms  of  touch- 
ing sensibility  of  Anne  Boleyn  —  "  the  tragedy  of  whose 
fate  has  blotted  out  the  remembrance  of  her  sins  —  if  her 
sins  were  .indeed,  and  in  reality,  more  than  imaginary,'^ 
and  although  in  giving  expression  to  such  sentiments  as 


276 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


these,  he  writes  like  a  man  who  has  a  heart  in  his  bosom, 
we  look  —  and  look  in  vain  through  all  his  pages  on  Mary 
Stuart  —  not  for  "  broad  charity,"  not  for  "  tender  hu- 
man sympathy,  not  for  "  ever  present  dignity,"  not  for 
"  outbursts  of  truest  pathos,"  not  for  some  consideration  for 
the  infirmities  of  "  a  lady  whose  faults  were  so  fearfully 
and  terribly  expiated,"  but  for  some  distant  approach  to 
the  truth  of  history,  for  decency  of  phrase,  for  common 
humanity.  Mary  Stuart's  long  years  of  suffering  and  im- 
prisonment afford  Mr.  Froude  unalloyed  delight,  and  when, 
with  insinuation  steeped  in  venom,  our  historian  is  not 
busy  misrepresenting  the  unhappy  captive,  he  indulges  in 
the  vulgar  insolence  of  referring  to  her  as  "  the  lady  of 
Tutbury"  or  "the  lady  of  Sheffield." 

We  have  sought  to  throw  some  light  upon  the  disputed 
points  of  Mary  Stuart's  history.  Our  task  is  practically 
completed,  and  there  is,  therefore,  no  occasion  closely  to 
follow  Mr.  Froude  any  further  in  the  unpleasant  task  of 
exposition  we  have  undertaken.  False  in  one,  false  in  all,  is 
an  established  maxim  which  would  have  long  since  war- 
ranted us  in  stopping  short  at  an  early  stage  of  the  exam- 
ination, and  in  claiming  on  all  the  remaining  volumes  of 
his  record  of  Mary  Stuart  the  verdict  we  were  entitled  to 
ask  upon  the  first. 


* 


CHAPTER  XXIV. 


"  He  trained  up  was  in  the  school  of  Satan's  lying  grace, 
Where  he  had  learned  a  finer  feat  that  Richard  erst  did  see 
To  do  the  deed  and  lay  the  Maine  on  them  that  harmless  be. 
For  he  and  his  companions  eke  agreeing  all  in  one, 
Did  kill  the  King  and  lay  the  blame  the  sackless  Queen  upon." 

Contemporary  Ballad^  1568. 

And  now  the  spirit  of  all  evil  held  high  carnival  in  Scot- 
land. Murray,  on  his  return  with  his  casket  and  his  vilely 
earned  £5,000,  issued  a  proclamation  which  we  are  assured 
(ix.  4'^3)  contained  "  a  true  account  of  the  investigation  at 
Hampton  Court."  This  true  account  told  the  Scotch  peo- 
ple that  the  charge  against  his  sister  for  the  murder  of  her 
husband  "  was  sufficiently  verified  and  by  the  Queen's 
hand  writ  notoriously  proven."  Murray  avers  that  the 
Council  found  the  Queen  guilty,  when,  as  we  have  seen, 
they  found  "  nothing  sufficiently  produced  nor  shown 
against  the  Queen  ;  "  and  yet  the  historian  says  Murray's 
account  is  a  true  one.  The  English  proposition  to  restore 
Mary  did  not  suit  the  Regent.  His  power  and  wealth  he 
was  determined  to  keep.  By  treachery  he  waylaid  and 
imprisoned  Lord  Herries  and  the  Duke  of  Chatelherault, 
and  arrested  Maitland,  who  was  rescued  by  Kirkaldy.  He 
then  sent  for  Grange,  Morton  having  prepared  four  assas- 
sins in  ambush  to  murder  him.  Grange  declined  the  in- 
vitation. Then  Murray  went  to  the  castle,  "  for,"  says  Sir 
James  Melville,  "  he  durst  trust  Kirkaldy,  though  Kirk- 
aldy durst  not  trust  him."  Kirkaldy,  urged  Murray,  should 
give  up  Maitland  to  be  tried  for  the  murder  of  Darnley. 
Yes,  replied  Grange,  if  you  arrest  and  try  Morton  and 
Archie  Douglas  as  principals  in  the  same  murder.  Mait- 


278 


MAKY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


land  favored  the  proposed  marriage  with  Norfolk,  and  was 
to  go  to  London  to  negotiate  for  Scotland.  Hence  Mur- 
ray's action. 

And  now  Murray  betrayed  Norfolk  by  sending  his  letter 
to  Elizabeth.  Norfolk  was  arrested  and  sent  to  the  Tower. 
When  afterwards  tried  and  his  letter  produced,  he  ex- 
claimed, "  The  Earl  of  Murray  sought  my  life  ;  "  but  Mr. 
Froude  is  unable  to  see  the  record  in  "  State  Trials."  (i. 
085.) 

jMurray  had  held  Paris  (Nicholas  Hubert)  secretly  in 
prison  since  the  month  of  October,  1568,  and  might  have 
produced  him  as  a  witness  against  the  Queen  at  the  Con- 
ference in  December.  Good  reason  had  he  for  not  doing 
it.  In  June,  1569,  he  writes  Elizabeth  that  Paris  has  just 
arrived  at  Leith.  Elizabeth,  Cecil,  and  the  Countess  of 
Lennox  make  the  most  pressing  instances  to  send  Hubert 
to  London,  a  request  with  which  the  Regent  is  careful  not 
to  comply,  but  sends  instead  what  he  calls  the  deposition 
of  Paris,  implicating  precisely  those  of  the  lords  who  had 
just  broken  with  him  and  declared  for  the  Queen. 

In  November  (1569)  the  Earls  of  Northumberland  and 
Westmoreland  broke  out  in  open  rebellion  with  the  im- 
mediate object  of  releasing  Mary  from  her  imprisonment. 
Their  effort  failed.  Many  fled,' and  of  the  numerous  pris- 
oners, Elizabeth,  with  keen  discrimination  and  "  a  frugal 
mind,"  ordered  conviction  as  traitors  for  those  who  held 
property  susceptible  of  confiscation,  but  immediate  hang- 
ing for  those  without  "  substance  of  lands,"  —  "  the  bod- 
ies not  to  be  removed  but  to  remain  till  they  fell  to  pieces 
where  they  hung."  Some  seven  or  eight  hundred  were 
executed,  and  more  would  have  followed  if  it  had  not  been 
represented  to  the  virgin  Queen  that  "  many  places  would 
be  left  naked  of  inhabitants  "  if  her  orders  were  obeyed.^ 

Murray  wrote  to  Elizabeth  claiming  great  merit  for  his 

1  Mr.  Froude  assures  us  that  to  Elizabeth  "  nothing  naturally  was 
more  distasteful  than  cruelt}-."    (ix.  568.) 


Murray's  memory. 


279 


arrest  of  Nortluiniberhind,  and  alarming  her  with  reports 
of  the  extension  of  the  rebellion  ;  that  it  had  "  more  dan- 
gerous branches,"  and  that  her  prisoner  Mary,  the  cause  of 
them  all,  was  "at  her  commission."  Soon  after  came  a 
letter  from  John  Knox  of  same  date  with  Murray's.  "  If 
ye  strike  not  at  the  root,"  was  the  suggestion  it  contained. 
"  Supreme  and  commanding  integrity"  (ix.  557)  had  taken 
the  Earl  of  Northumberland  prisoner,  with  aid  of  the 
spy  Hector  of  Ilarlaw,  a  name  ever  since  infamous  in 
Border  history,  and  would  have  sold  him  to  Elizabeth  had 
he  dared,  for  if  he  had  all  Scotland  would  have  risen 
against  him,  thinking  it  "  a  great  reproach  and  ignominy 
to  the  whole  country  to  deliver  any  banished  man  to  the 
slaughter."  INlurray  undertook  to  arrest  Westmoreland, 
the  Ratcliffes,  Nevils,  Swynburnes,  Nortons,  and  other  Eng- 
lish gentlemen,  but  the  Borderers  defied  him,  and  six  out 
of  eight  hundred  of  his  own  men  deserted  him.  The  con- 
sunnnation  of  the  infamy  was  reserved  for  Morton.  It  is 
most  probable  that  Murray  would  have  succeeded  in  giving 
np  Northumberland  in  part  payment  for  the  surrender  of 
his  sister,  but  he  was  shot  down  in  the  streets  of  Linlith- 
gow. Tiie  historian  who  has  recorded  the  murders  of 
Beaton,  Black,  and  Riccio  with  exuberant  jubilation  is  sim- 
ply amusing  with  his  "  vile  assassination."  ^  "  Whether  or 
no"  ...  .  (ix.  593)  "his  memory  has  been  sacrificed  to 
sentimentalism  "  (ix.  587),  we  cannot  say.    Certain  are  we 

1  M.  ^lignet  finds  it  perfectly  natural,  and  cont''orinable  to  the  eternal 
fitness  of  tilings,  tliat  Murray,  "the  au'hor  of  civil  war,  should  fall  i's 
victim;  and  that  as  the  acconiplice  of  a  first  murder  and  an  accessary 
after  the  fact  to  a  second  he  should  perish  b}'  the  hand  of  an  assassin. 
The  means  by  which  men  rise  are  very  often  the  same  by  which  they 
fall.  Such  is. the  ordinary  law  of  events  in  which  the  hidden  justice  of 
Providence  manifests  itself,"  {"  Auteur  de  la  guerre  civile,  il  finit  par  en 
etrevictime;  complice  d'un  premier  meurtre  et  en  ayant  toldre  un  second 
il  pdrit  victime  d'un  assassinat.  Les  procddds  par  lesquels  on  s'dlfeve 
sont  bien  souvent  ceux  par  lesquels  on  tombe.  Telle  est  la  loi  ordinaire 
des  dvdnements,  dans  laquelle  delate  la  justice  cachee  de  la  Providence!  ") 
Mignet,  vol.  ii.  p.  117. 


280 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


that  his  memory  is  not  lovely  in  the  eyes  of  the  present 
generation,  although  we  are  now  assured  that  "  France 
tried  to  bribe  him  in  vain  ; "  that  "  he  quarreled  once 
with  Knox,  so  that  they  spoke  not  together  for  eighteen 
mouths,"  because  he  insisted  that  while  his  sister  remained 
a  Catholic  she  should  not  be  interdicted  from  the  mass ;  ^ 
that  as  a  ruler  he  was  severe  but  inflexibly  just ;  "  and 
that,  finally,  he  was,  "  in  the  best  sense  of  the  word,  a 
servant  of  God  !  " 

The  barbarity  of  Elizabeth  in  hanging  peasants  by 
batches,  after  the  rebellion  had  been  put  down,  had  ex- 
cited bitter  resentment  among  the  people  of  the  northern 
counties,  and  disaffection  was  strong  among  all  classes. 
"  There  be  not  in  all  this  country,"  writes  Sadler  to  Cecil, 
from  York,  "  ten  gentlemen  that  do  favor  and  allow  her 
majesty's  proceedings  in  the  cause  of  religion,  and  that 
the  hearts  of  the  common  people,  for  the  most  part,  be 
with  the  rebels."  Again  the  rebellion  broke  out  (Feb- 
ruary, 1570).  Leonard  Dacre,  at  the  head  of  3,000  men, 
marched  to  make  a  junction  with  5,000  Scots  from  over 
the  Border,  but  was  defeated  by  a  small  force  of  veterans 
under  Lord  Hunsdon.  Dacre  attacked,  and  it  was,"  says 
Hunsdon,  "  the  proudest  charge  I  ever  saw." 

One  of  the  strong  points  relied  on  by  our  historian 
throughout  his  work,  is  the  attitude  of  the  Earl  of  Lennox 
and  Lady  Lennox,  towards  Mary  Stuart  after  the  murder  of 
Darnley.  Lennox,  in  league  with  the  rebel  lords,  appeared 
as  the  accuser  of  Mary  on  several  occasions,  and  Mr. 
Froude  cites,  with  great  zest  (x.  96),  a  letter  of  the  Count- 
ess of  Lennox  (September  8,  1570)  to  Cecil,  expressing 
her  conviction  of  Mary's  guilt  of  the  murder  of  Darnley. 
To  this  letter  is  opposed  the  declaration  of  Mary  Stuart, 

1  It  -would  appear  from  this  statement  of  Mr.  Froude  that  John  Knox 
has  told  a  falsehood  concerning  this  "spoke  not."  Nevertheless  we 
prefer  Knox's  version.  — Ante,  p.  57. 


TESTIMONY  OF  DARNLEY's  MOTHER. 


281 


in  a  letter  to  her  ambassador  at  Paris,  in  1578,  from  which 
it  would  appear  that  Lady  Lennox  had  become  convinced 
-   of  her  error  in  accusing  the  Queen.    Mary  wrote  :  — 

*'  This  good  lady  was,  tliauks  to  God,  in  very  good  correspond- 
ence with  me  these  five  or  six  years  bygone,  and  has  confessed 
to  by  sundry  letters  under  her  own  hand,  which  I  carefully  pre- 
serve, the  injury  she  did  me  by  the  unjust  pursuits  which  she 
allowed  to  go  out  against  me  in  her  name  through  bad  informa^ 
tion,  but  principally,  she  said,  through  the  express  orders  of  the 
Queen  of  England  and  the  persuasion  of  her  council;  who  also 
took  much  solicitude  that  she  and  I  might  never  come  to  good 
understanding  together.  But  how  soon  (as  soon  as)  she  came  to 
know  of  ray  innocence,  she  desisted  from  any  further  pursuit 
against  me ;  nay,  went  so  far  as  to  refuse  her  consent  to  anything 
they  should  act  against  me  in  her  name." 

From  time  to  time,  during  Mary's  imprisonment,  her 
apartments  were  invaded,  and  all  her  money,  private 
papers,  etc.,  taken  from  her  and  sent  to  London.  The 
letters  of  the  Countess  of  Lennox,  referred  to  by  Mary,  of 
course  disappeared  forever,  and  Mary's  statement  of  their 
contents  was  scouted  as  amounting,  after  all,  to  nothing 
more  than  the  affirmation  of  her  own  innocence.  But  the 
following  letter,  addressed  to  Mary  by  the  Countess  of 
Lennox,  written  in  November,  1575,  has  been  found  among 
Cecil's  papers,  and  fully  confirms  Mary's  statement :  — 

MARGARET  COUNTESS    OF  LENNOX  TO  MARY  QUEEN  OF 
SCOTS. 

"  It  may  please  your  majesty,  I  have  received  your  token  and 
mind,  both  by  your  letter  and  other  ways,  much  to  my  comfort, 
specially  perceiving  what  zealous  natural  care  your  majesty  hath 
of"  our  sweet  and  peerless  jewel  in  Scotland.  I  have  been  no  less 
fearful  and  careful  as  your  majesty  of"  him,  that  the  wicked  gov- 
ernor (Morton)  should  not  have  power  to  do  ill  to  his  person, 
whom  God  preserve  from  his  enemies !  {Here  a  passage  as  to 
sending  a  messenger  to  Edinburgh.)  I  beseech  your  majesty  fear 
not,  but  trust  in  God  that  all  shall  be  well ;  the  treachery  of  your 


282 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


traitors  is  bettor  known  than  before.  I  shall  always  play  my 
part  to  your  majesty's  content,  willing  God,  so  as  may  tend  to 
both  our  comforts.  And  now  must  I  yield  your  majesty  my  most 
liumble  thanks  for  your  good  remembrances  and  bounty  to  our 
little  daughter  here  (Arabella  Stuart)  who  some  day  may  serve 
your  Highness,  Almighty  God  grant,  and  to  your  majesty  long 
and  happy  life. 

"  Hackney,  this  vith  of  November. 

"Your  majesty's  most  humble  and  loving  mother  and  aunt, 

"  Margaret  Lennox." 

This  letter  was  intercepted,  and  never  reached  Mary. 
The  original  is  yet  in  the  Record  Office,  indorsed,  "  My 
Lady's  Grace  the  Countess  of  Lennox  to  the  Queen  of 
Scots.''  Thomas  Nelson,  one  of  Darnley's  servants,  was 
tampered  with  by  Murray,  and  his  deposition  concerning 
the  murder  is,  in  several  points,  manifestly  false.  He  en- 
tered the  Service  of  the  Countess  of  Lennox  immediately 
thereafter,  and  in  good  time  she  doubtless  heard  from  him 
the  true  story.  Again,  tlie  Earl  of  Lennox,  an  unprin- 
cipled man,  was  killed  in  Scotland  two  years  before  his 
Countess  wrote  this  letter.  His  papers  were  in  her  hands, 
and  perhaps  revealed  the  truth.  These  are  conjectures. 
Certain  it  is,  nevertheless,  that  for  reasons  g()od  and  suffi- 
cient to  herself  she  totally  changed  her  opinion  as  to  the 
murder  of  her  son,  and  bore  testimony  not  only  to  Mary's 
innocence,  but  to  Elizabeth's  secret  prompting  of  her 
accusation.  —  Elizabeth,  who,  through  all  Mr.  Fronde's 
volumes,  is  solicitous  only  for  the  preservation  of  Mary's 
reputation. 

The  weight  and  importance  of  the  testimony  of  the 
Countess  of  Lennox  cannot  be  overrated,  and  Mary  Stuart's 
defenders  may  well  be  satisfied  to  be  of  the  same  belief  as 
the  mother  of  the  nuirdered  Darnley. 

Mr.  Froude,  so  thoroughly  familiar  with  the  history  of 
that  period,  and  so  entirely  at  home  in  the  English  Record 
Office,  has  not  yet  discovered  this  letter,  and  resolutely 
declines  any  offer  to  have  it  discovered  unto  him. 


CHAPTER  XXV. 


FOTllERINGAY. 

*'  There  are  few  judiciary  proceedins^s,  passing  over  the  question  of  juris- 
diction, so  suspicious,  and,  it  may  be  said,  so  tainted,  as  the  case  and  pro- 
ceeding- against  the  Queen  of  Scots!"  — Sir  James  Mackintosh. 

But  it  is  fnhe,  absolutely  and  utterly,  that  the  plot  was 
set  on  foot  by  agents  of  Walsingham  to  tempt  her  to  join 
it  in  her  desperation,  and  then  to  destroy  her."  This  is  Mr. 
Fronde's  shrill  scream  (xii.  26-1)  at  the  mention  of  the 
conspiracy  by  which  Mary  Stuart's  life  was  taken  away  ; 
and  his  very  peculiar  statements  as  to  the  plot  are  the 
variations  on  that  tl/ema.  His  history  of  the  conspiiacy,^ 
and  of  the  trial  of  the  Scottish  Queen,  is  highly  creditable 
to  his  ingenuity,^  his  rhetoric,  and  his  peculiar  talent  as  a 
writer. 

1  As  having  an  important  bearing  upon  the  whole  subject  under  dis- 
cussion, the  attention  of  tl)e  reader  is  specially  requested  to  the  ofHcially 
declared  opinion  of  tlie  custodian  of  the  English  Record  Office.  See  Ap- 
pendix No  1 1. 

No  opportunity  is  omitted  in  the  "  History  "  to  impress  the  reader  with 
the  belief  that  plots  to  assassinate  Elizabeth  were  at  all  times  rife,  and  that 
they  were  formed  in  -Mary  Stuart's  interest  and  with  her  knowledge.  One 
very  reprehen^ble  attempt  of  this  nature  is  made  in  which  the  historian 
combines  a  double  blow  at  Marv  Stuart  and  the  other  special  object  of  his 
hatred.  Referring  to  the  "  Sacred  College  "  at  Rome,  he  says  (viii.  69): 
It  had  been  decided  in  secret  council  to  permit  Catholics  in  disguise  to 
hold  benefices  in  England,  to  take  the  oaths  of  allegiance,  and  to  serve 
Holy  Church  in  the  camp  of  the  enemv.  '  Remission  of  sin  to  them  and 
their  heirs  —  with  anunities,  honors,  and  promotions,'  was  offered  'to  any 
cook,  brewer,  baker,  vintner,  physician,  grocer,  surgeon,  or  other  who  would 
make  away  Avith  the  Queen;'  the  curse  of  God  and  his  vicar  was  threat- 
ened against  all  those  '  wiio  would  not  promote  and  assist  by  money  or 
otherwise  the  pretenses  of  the  Queen  of  Scots  to  the  English  Crown.'  "  As 


284 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


Mr.  Burton,  scarcely  recovered  from  the  unseemly  ela- 
tion of  his  "  here  the  trap  was  laid  in  which  she  was  caught," 
finds  himself  forced  to  admit  that  "the  one  great  point  on 
which  the  justice  of  putting  Queen  Mary  to  death  is  held 
to  turn  —  her  own  part  in  the  conspiracy  to  put  Elizabeth 
to  death  —  is  in  this  position.  If  we  suppose  a  certain 
cipher  to  have  been  forged  by  Walsingham's  instruments, 
then  the  charge  has  not  been  proved."     (vi.  14.) 

Under  the  Act  of  Parliament  of  1585  it  was  enacted, 
substantially,  that  if  any  one  should  .plot  for  Mary  Stuart,^ 
"  her  majesty's  subjects  might  lawfully  "  pursue  her  to  her 
death.  Plots  could  now  hardly  fail  to  apjDcar,  and  they  did 
appear.  There  were  plots  to  release  the  Queen  of  Scots, 
and  there  was  a  plot  to  assassinate  Elizabeth.  Cecil  and 
Walsingham,  with  aid  of  spies  and  informers,  skilled  letter 
openers,  and  forgers,  managed  to  connect  them,  and  the 
next  step  was  to  connect  them  with  Mary. 

Walsingham  specially  distinguished  himself  by  his  inge- 
nuity in  perfecting  a  plot  by  which  he  contrived  to  surround 
the  captive  Queen  with  spies,  informers,  and  double-faced 
agents,  who  should  furnish  facilities  and  inducements  for 
correspondence  to  tempt  her  into  his  snare.    Intensely  in- 

his  authority  for  this  remarkable  information,  Mr.  Fronde  cites  "  Report  of 
E.  Dennum,  April  13,  1564:  Str\'pe's  Annals  of  Elizabeth.'''' 

Criticism  in  England  has  already  exposed  this  performance.  ^Ir.  Fronde 
boldly  states  the  text  as  thougii  it  rested  on  undoubted  authority.  There 
is  such  a  report  as  cited,  but  Strype  has  the  honesty  to  warn  his  reader  that 
this  Dennum  was  a  paid  spy  of  Cecil;  that  he  was  sent  over  to  the  Con- 
tinent for  the  express  purpose  of  furnishing  Elizabeth's  minister  "  intelli- 
gence of  foreign  conspiracies  and  contrivances,"  and  his  report  professes  to 
have  been  attended  by  "  making  use  of  money,"  and  thus  "  getting  several 
notices  of  the  Pope  and  what  he  was  doing,  in  his  privy  cabals,"  and 
Strype  further  describes  his  document  as  a  copv.  Small  wonder  that  even 
English  Protestant  criticism  is  surprised  that  Mr.  Froude  "  takes  the 
strange  and  unwarrantable  course  of  commencing  by  assuming  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  documents,''  and  that  it  should  also  find  in  such  a  performance 
the  evidence  of  "reckless  partisanship  and  shallow  precipitancy'." 

1  "It  is  unnecessary,"  observes  Sir  James  Mackintosh,  "  to  point  out  the 
monstrous  hardship  of  making  the  Queen  of  Scots,  a  prisoner  in  the  hands 
of  Elizabeth,  responsible  for  acts  done  for  her  and  in  her  name." 


rillLIPS  THE  FORGER. 


285 


terested  in  the  success  of  liis  device,  he  left  nothing  undone 
to  insure  that  success.  Does  any  one  believe  that  the 
man  who  could  associate  himself  with  such  debased  instru- 
ments to  obtain  the  evidence  he  so  ardently  desired,  would 
for  a  moment  hesitate  to  tamper  with  it  when  once  ob- 
tained ?  Can  Mr.  Froude  explain  away  the  more  than 
suspicious  correspondence  of  Sir  Amyas  Paulet  with  Wal- 
singham  and  Philips  of  June  29th,  just  preceding  the  arri- 
val of  Babington's  letter  of  July  6th.  He  writes  to  Walsing- 
ham  that  "  he  dares  not  put  Phillips'  plans  in  execution," 
and  to  Philips  the  same  day  that  he  "dares  not  proceed 
to  the  execution  of  the  plan  in  all  things,  therefore  returns 
his  packet."  ^  The  question  is  here  concerning  a  plan  of 
Philips  the  forger.  (See  Appendix  No  11.)  Walsingham 
is  aware  of  the  plan  which,  originating  with  Philips  and 
requiritig  for  its  completion  the  aid  of  Mary  Stuart's  jailer, 
is  clearly  aimed  at  her.  Paulet  is  a  brutal  bigot ;  but  to 
pjlizabeth  he  refuses  to  be  Mary's  assassin,  and  here  re- 
fuses to  do  some  vile  thing.  What  was  it  ?  The  packet  is 
returned  because  of  this  refusal.  Did  not  this  packet  con- 
tain forged  letters  which  Paulet  was  asked  to  place  sur- 
reptitiously among  Mary  Stuart's  papers  with  intent  to  seize 
and  find  them  there  ?  But  the  Babington  letter  soon  fol- 
lowed, and  the  trap  —  as  Mr.  Burton  has  it  —  was  sprung. 

Pooley,  Walsingham's  spy,  had  wormed  himself  into 
Babington's  confidence,  and  suggested  that  the  Scottish 
Queen  should  be  written  to.-  Babington  acquiesced,  and 
wrote  her  a  letter  which  went  straight  into  Walsingham's 
hands.  It  was  then  forwarded  to  Mary,  but  with  how  much 
interpolation  or  change  before  it  left  AValsingham  cannot 
now  be  ascertained.  Maintaining  a  large  correspondence, 
the  Queen  had  two  secretaries,  Curie  and  Nau.  One  of 
these  wrote  out  her  letters  from  her  notes  or  under  her 
dictation,  and  when  required  to  be  sent  in  cipher,  Nau  did 
the  work.    The  only  letters  upon  which  accusation  was 

1  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  vol.  ii.  Scottish  Series,  and  Appendix  No.  11. 


286 


MARY  QUEKX  OF  SCOTS. 


based,  were  those  in  cipher,  and  the  documentary  evidence 
upon  which  Mary  was  found  guilty  were  so-called  copies 
of  deciphers  of  the  letters,  deciphered,  not  by  Nau,  but  by 
one  Philipps,  a  man  in  Walsinghani's  employment,^  to  whom 
on  one  occasion  (November  oO,  I08G)  he  wrote  that  he  sent 
him  a  letter,  "  which  if  it  may  he  deciphered,  will,  I  hope, 
lay  open  the  treachery  that  reignetli  among  us.  Her  maj- 
esty hath  promised  to  double  your  pension,  and  to  be  oth- 
erwise good  unto  you.  And  so  I  commit  you  to  God." 
(Cotton  MSS.)  A  sketch  of  the  personal  appearance  of 
this  Philipps  has  been  preserved  :  Of  low  stature,  slender 
every  way,  dark,  yellow-haired  on  the  head,  and  clear 
yellow-bearded,  eated  in  the  face  with  small  pockes,  of 
short  sight." 

When  Nau  and  Curie  were  arrested,  promises  and 
threats  of  torture  were  alternately  made  them.  Septem- 
ber 4th,  Cecil  writes  to  Hatton  that  he  thought  they  were 
ready  "  to  yield  somewhat  to  confirm  their  mistress'  crimes, 
if  they  were  persuaded  that  themselves  might  scape  and 
the  blow  fldl  upon  their  Mrs.  betwixt  her  head  and  her 
shoulders.''  The  fact  that,  two  days  before  Cecil  wrote 
this  letter,  Walsingham  informed  the  French  Ambassador 
that  Nau  and  Curie  had  confessed  more  than  was  wanted, 
is  more  than  suggestive.  Babington  and  thirteen  others 
were  meantime  convicted  and  sentenced  to  be  hanged,  cut 
down  before  they  were  dead,  embowelled,  and  quartered. 
Queen  Elizabeth  desired  that  they  should  suffer  death  in 
some  manner  more  excruciating.  Being  told  that  it  would 
be  illegal,  she  kindly  consented  that  the  law  should  take 
its  course,  provided  the  executions  were  "  protracted  to 
the  extremitie  of  payne  in  them,"  and  in  full  sight  of  the 
people. 

Nau  and  Curie  were  compelled  to  witness  these  exe- 

1  "  C'est  a  I'aide  de  ces  misdrables  instruments  qu'il  pr^para  la  mine  de 
]\Iarie  Stuart"  (Miffnet,  vol.  ii.  p.  265);  for  even  M.  Mignet  can  see  clearly 
here,  now  that  he  has  left  Buchanan  behind  him. 


FALSE  COPY  OF  FALSE  DECirilER. 


287 


cutions  —  probably  to  put  them  in  a  proper  frame  of  mind 
to  answer  interrogatories.  On  their  examination  they  were 
shown  —  not  the  original  cipher  sent  —  not  a  copy  of  the 
cipher  —  not  even  a  copy  of  the  decipher,  of  Mary's  let- 
ter to  Babington  —  the  correctness  of  which  was  the  all 
important  point  —  the  only  question,  in  fact,  at  issue,  but 
an  abstract  of  the  principal  points  "  contained  in  it.  The 
official  record  recites  that  they  answered  in  the  affirma- 
tive;  but  this  is  in  terms  so  ambiguous  that  it  is  impos- 
sible to  apply  their  admission  to  the  passages  disclaimed 
by  Mary,  and  which  have  since  been  demonstrated  to  be 
forgeries.  "  It  was  the  same,  or  like  it,"  they  said.  But 
official  records  in  England  in  all  matters  touching  Mary 
Stuart  command  but  little  respect  for  their  integrity  —  as 
witness  the  erasures,  interlineations,  and  interpolations  of 
the  minutes  in  Cecil's  own  hand  of  the  proceedings  when 
the  casket-letters  were  produced.  Nau  afterwards  pos- 
itively affirmed  "  that  the  principal  heads  of  accusation 
against  the  Queen,  his  mistress,  were  false,"  and  demanded 
that  his  protest  should  be  recorded.  Curie,  when  dying, 
protested  that,  as  he  should  answer  to  God,  "  he  had  main- 
tained the  Queen's  innocence  both  in  her  life  and  after  her 
death." 

Did  Nau  or  Curie  identify  and  swear  to  the  pretended 
passages  in  the  cipher  letters,  which  were  produced  to 
show  Mary's  complicity  in  the  plot  ?  Did  they  testify  that 
they,  or  either  of  them,  wrote  those  passages  under  her 
dictation,  or  from  her  notes  ?  There  is  no  other  question 
in  that  portion  of  the  case ;  and  when  Mr.  Froude  says 
that  "  Philipps'  copy  of  the  cipher  was  examined  by  the 
Privy  Council  and  the  decipher  verified"  (xii.  260),  he 
recoils  from  discussion  of  the  real  point  at  issue,  as  in- 
stinctively as  he  shrinks  from  examination  into  the  origin 
of  the  casket-letters.  However,  he  makes  amends  for  the 
debility  of  this  passage  by  the  epileptic  nerve  of  another 
at  page  293,  in  which  he  states  that  on  examination  of 


2S8 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


Mary's  papers,  taken  from  her  at  Chartley.  proof  was  found 
that  "  the  worst  suspicions  formed  about  her  had  fallen 
short  of  the  reality."  ^ —  the  fact  being  that  not  a  line,  not 
a  word  of  all  Mary's  papers  and  correspondence  —  the  ac- 
cumulation of  years  —  was  ever  produced  against  her. 

Of  the  trial  and  execution  of  Babington  and  his  asso- 
ciates, of  the  examination  of  her  secretaries,  and  their 
pretended  admissions,  Mary  had  heard  nothing.  For  sev- 
enteen days  she  was  kept  in  solitary  confinement  at  Tixall, 
and  meantime  all  her  books,  papers,  letters,  and  money 
were  seized  and  sent  to  London. 

A  commission  was  now  ordered  for  her  trial.  The 
French  Ambas>ador.  in  the  king's  name,  demanded  that 
she  might  have  the  aid  of  counsel,  to  which,  two  days  af- 
terwards, Elizabeth  sent  verbal  reply  that  "she  did  not 
believe  his  king  had  given  him  orders  to  school  her ;  his 

1  To  the  historian  who  so  clearly  sees  Maiy  Stuart  proven  guilty  at  Foth- 
eringay.  -whose  knowledge  of  the  existence  of  such  a  thing  in  English  law 
as  the  peine  foiie  ei  dure  was  acquired  under  such  untoward  circumstances, 
and  who  has  "never  seen  the  face  of  an  EngUsh  justice,"  we  warmly  rec- 
ommend perusal  of  Lord  Brougham's  remarks  on  the  error  of  a  really  able 
historian —  Hume:  '"This  error,"  says  Lord  Brougham,  " shows  that  he 
knew  very  little  of  what  legal  evidence  is,  how  expertly  soever  he  might 
deal  with  historical  evidence.  After  enumerating  the  proofs  adduced  at 
the  trial  of  Mary's  accession  to  the  assassination  part  of  Babingtou's  plot, 
namely,  copies  taken  in  Walsingham's  office  of  correspondence  with  Bab- 
ington; the  confessions  of  her  two  secretaries,  without  torture,  but  in  her 
absence,  and  without  confronting  or  cross-examination;  Babington's  con- 
fession, and  the  confession  of  Ballard  and  Savage,  that  Babington  had 
shown  thf  m  Mary's  letters  in  cipher,  — the  historian  adds  that,  'in  the  case 
of  an  ordinary  criminal,  this  proof  would  be  esteemed  legal  and  even 
satisfactory,  if  not  opposed  by  some  other  circumstances  which  shake  the 
credit  of  the  witnesses.' 

"  Nothing  can  betray  greater  ignorance  of  the  very  first  principles  of  the 
law  of  evidence.  The  witnesses  he  speaks  of  do  not  even  exist;  there  is 
nothing  like  a  witness  mentioned  in  his  enumeration  of  proofs;  and  how 
any  man  of  Mr.  Hume's  acuteness  could  fancy  that  what  one  person  con- 
fesses behind  a  prisoner's  back,  that  he  heard  a  third  person  say  to  a  pris- 
oner, or  rather  that  this  third  person  showed  him  ciphered  letters  not  pro- 
duced of  that  prisoner,  could  be  anything  like  evidence  to  affect  him,  is 
truly  astonishing,  and  shows  how  dangerous  a  thing  it  is  for  the  artist  most 
expert  in  his  o^vn  line  to  pronounce  an  opinion  on  matters  beyond  it." 


APPEAL  TO  POSTERITY. 


28& 


advice  was  not  needed,  and  as  the  law  considered  a  person 
in  the  situation  of  the  Scottish  Queen  unworthj'  of  coun- 
sel, she  would  abide  by  the  ordinary  forms  of  justice." 

Forms  must  be  gone  through.  Leicester,  then  in  Hol- 
land, had  written  to  recommend  the  sure  remedy  of  poison, 
and  even  sent  a  learned  divine  over  to  prove  the  lawful- 
ness of  adopting  its  use.  The  prevailing  opinion  in  Eliza- 
beth's council  was,  that  "her  death  was  indispensably 
requisite  to  the  establishment  of  the  new  religion."  (Cam- 
den.) But  the  forms  were  necessary,  if  only  for  decency's 
sake.  Mary  was,  in  fact,  already  condemned  to  death,^ 
and  so  she  told  the  Commissioners  on  their  arrival  at 
Fotheringay.  Their  proceedings,  she  said,  were  "merely 
formal,  for  that  she  ivas  already  condemned  by  them  that 
should  try  her."  "  Yet  I  adjure  you,"  she  added,  "  to  look 
to  your  consciences  in  this  matter,  for  remember  THE 
THEATRE  OF  THE  WORLD  IS  WIDER  THAN 
THE  REALM  OF  ENGLAND." 

Mary,  at  first,  refused  to  appear  before  the  Commission- 
ers, knowing  that  they  had  not  a  shadow  of  right  or  law  to 
try  her.  Several  attempts  were  unsuccessful  in  shaking 
this  resolution.  "  What  was  their  authority  ?  "  she  asked. 
The  Queen  ?  The  Queen  was  merely  her  equal,  not  her 
superior.  Their  sovereign,  in  her  letter,  said  that  she 
(Mary)  "  was  living  in  England  under  the  Queen's  pro- 
tection." She  could  not  understand  that  statement.  Would 
the  Lord  Chancellor  explain  it?  Sorely  embarrassed  for 
reply  was  the  Lord  Chancellor.  He  was  of  opinion  that 
"  it  was  not  for  subjects  to  interpret  their  sovereign's 
letters." 

"  The  laws  and  statutes  of  England,"  said  Mary,  "  are  to 

1  *'  Leicester's  bond  of  association  for  the  protection  of  Elizabeth  against 
popish  conspirators,  and  the  Act  of  Parliament  in  which  it  was  authorized 
and  embodied,  were  engines  framed  for  as  direct  agency  in  the  execution  of 
the  Queen  of  Scots,  as  the  executioners,  the  axe,  and  the  block."—  Sir 
James  Mackintosh. 

19 


290 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


me  unknown.  I  am  destitute  of  counselors.  My  papers 
and  notes  are  taken  from  me,  and  no  man  dareth  speak  in 
my  justification,  though  I  be  innocent.  I  am  clear  from 
any  practice  to  the  hurt  of  your  Queen.  Let  her  convict 
me  of  the  same  by  my  words  or  my  writings ;  but  sure  I 
am  neither  can  be  produced  against  me."  Further,  she 
told  them  it  was  plain  she  was  prejudged  as.  guilty  of  the 
crime,  therefore  it  was  useless  for  her  to  appear. 

It  is  thought  by  many  that  she  should  have  held  out  in 
her  decision,  by  declining  the  competency  of  the  tribunal. 
But  Hatton  had  said  to  her,  "  If  you  are  innocent,  you  have 
nothing  to  fear,  but  by  avoiding  a  trial  you  stain  your 
reputation  with  an  eternal  blot."  It  is  reasonably  conjec- 
tured that  this  consideration,  joined  to  the  reflection  that 
her  enemies  were  determined  to  have  her  life,  and  that  if 
she  were  secretly  assassinated  suicide  would  be  imputed, 
decided  her  to  appear. 

On  the  morning  of  the  14th  October  (0.  S.),  enfeebled 
by  illness,  and  walking  with  the  support  of  her  physi- 
cian's arm,  the  Queen  of  Scotland  entered  the  great  hall 
of  Fotheringay  Castle.  The  ablest  statesmen  and  law- 
yers of  England,  and  tlie  most  distinguished  of  its  nobility 
were  assembled  to  try  her  —  at  once,  prosecutors,  judges, 
and  jurors.  Of  the  forty-two  appointed,  thirty-six  had 
assembled,  and  to  these  was  now  added  the  Queen's  jailer, 
Sir  Amyas  Paulet. 

Nine  earls,  thirteen  lords.  Viscount  Montague,  the  Lord 
Chancellor,  the  Lord  Treasurer,  Elizabeth's  Privy  Coun- 
cilors, Hatton,  Walsingham,  Croft,  Sadler,  and  Mildmay  ; 
Wray  and  Anderson,  Chief  Justices  of  the  Common  Pleas 
and  Queen's  Bench  ;  Manwood,  Chief  Baron  of  the  Ex- 
chequer ;  and  Gaudy  and  Periam,  Justices  of  the  Common 
Pleas  and  Queen's  Bench,  formed  the  array,  and  to  aid 
them,  for  the  prosecution,  appeared  the  Attorney-general, 
Popham,  and  the  Solicitor-general,  Egerton. 


WHY  NOT  FACE  TO  FACE?  291 

"  Alas !  "  said  the  unfortunate  prisoner,  "  how  many 
learned  counselors  are  here,  and  yet  not  one  for  me  ! " 

No,  not  one  !  and  this  prisoner  was  a  friendless  woman, 
for  nineteen  years  deprived  of  her  liberty,  unaware  of  the 
late  trials  which  were  held  by  her  judges  to  be  proofs  against 
her,  without  witnesses,  papers,  or  even  the  poor  aid  of  a 
scribe,  and  ignorant  of  judicial  forms  and  of  the  laws  of 
England. 

That  Christian  statesman,  Lord  Burghley,  manifested  his 
appreciation  of  her  sad  condition  by  circulating  among  the 
members  of  the  Commission,  "  A  note  of  the  indignities 
and  wrongs  offered  by  the  Queen  of  Scots  to  the  Queen's 
majesty,"  and  a  distinguished  English  historian  —  we  do 
not  refer  to  Mr.  Froude  — has  thus  described  the  incident: 
"  No  pettifogging  advocate  could  employ  falsehood  and 
sophistry  with  more  license  than  this  statesman  acting  in 
the  sacred  character  of  a  judge." 

But  this  woman  was  Mary  Stuart,  and  alone  and  unaided 
she  baffled  their  ability,  their  learning,  their  skill,  and  their 
manifest  injustice,  with  weapons  drawn  from  her  sense  of 
natural  rights,  and  the  consciousness  of  her  integrity.^ 

The  papers  used  in  evidence  were  all  copies,  and  no 
witnesses  were  produced  against  her.^  Babington's  con- 
fession was  presented  as  criminating  her.  "IfBabington 
confessed  such  things,"  she  replied,  "  why  was  he  put  to 
death,  instead  of  beinor  brous^ht  face  to  face  with  me?" 
and  she  appealed  to  the  statute  (15th  Elizabeth)  by  which 
"  the  testimony  and  oath  of  two  lawful  witnesses,  brought 
face  to  face  with  the  accused,  were  necessary  to  con- 
vict."   Reply  made,  "  they  had  her  letters,"  and  copies  of 

1  "It  is  impossible  to  read,  without  admiration,  in  the  minute  records  of 
the  trial,  the  self-possessed,  prompt,  clear,  and  sagacious  replies  by  which 
this  forlorn  woman  defended  herself  against  the  most  expert  lawyers  and 
politicians  of  tlie  age,  who,  instead  of  examining  her  as  judges,  pressed  her 
with  the  unscrupulous  ingenuity  of  enemies." —  Sir  James  Mackintosh. 

2  "  At  Fotheringay  the  accused  was  examined  without  the  witnesses,  and 
at  Westminster,  the  witnesses  Avithout  the  accused." — Mignet,  vol.  ii.  p.  321. 


292 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


Philipps'  handiwork  were  produced.  "  Nay,"  she  objected, 
"  bring  nie  mine  own  hand-writ ;  ^  anything  to  suit  a  pur- 
pose may  be  put  in  what  be  called  copies.  This  is  not  the 
first  time  that  my  letters  have  been  copied  and  interpolated. 
It  is  an  easy  matter  to  counterfeit  ciphers  and  characters." 

She  greatly  feared,"  she  added,  that  it  had  been  done  by 
Walsingham  to  bring  her  to  the  scaffold,  for  if  she  were 
rightly  informed,  he  had,  before  this,  practiced  against  her 
life." 

This  was  not  "  a  random  shot,"  and  the  blow  told  with 
terrible  effect.  Walsingham  was  greatly  agitated,  as  well 
he  might  be.  Behold,  the  judge  is  now  the  criminal.  He 
called  God  to  record "  his  reply  which  was  no  denial, 
but  an  evasion  of  Mary's  charge. 

"I  have  no  counsel,"  again  she  told  them;  "you  have 
deprived  me  of  my  papers,  and  all  means  of  preparing  my 
defense,  which  must,  therefore,  be  confined  to  a  solemn 
denial  of  the  crime  imputed  to  me  ;  and  I  protest,  on  the 
sacred  honor  of  a  queen,  that  I  am  innocent  of  practicing 
against  your  sovereign's  life.  I  do  not,  indeed,  deny  that 
I  have  longed  for  liberty,  and  earnestly  labored  to  procure 
it.  Nature  impelled  me  to  do  so ;  but  I  call  God  to  wit- 
ness that  I  have  never  conspired  the  death  of  the  Queen 
of  England." 

In  asking  the  Commissioners  why  Curie  and  Nau  were 
not  confronted  with  her,  and  why  her  own  writings  were 
not  produced,  she  put  questions  they  dared  not  answer. 
It  is  an  all-sufficient  commentary  on  the  monstrous  nature 
of  these  proceedings,  and  the  actual  despotism  then  exist- 
ing in  England,  that,  anticipating  Mary's  demand  to  be 
confronted  with   her  secretaries,  Elizabeth  herself  had 

1  TValsingham  had  Mary's  own  note  of  her  answer  to  Babington.  He  also 
had  the  French  letter  written  by  Nau  in  conformity  with  the  notes.  He 
did  not  produce  them.  He  dared  not  produce  them ;  and  he  asked  her 
conviction  —  himself  being  one  of  her  judges  —  on  a  copy  of  Philipps'  de- 
cipher of  the  cipher  into  which  that  Frencii  letter  had  been  put. 


LORD  brougham's  ARGUMENT. 


203 


written  to  Cecil  ''that  she  considered  it  unnecessary." 
Gandy,  one  of  the  judges,  and  the  Lord  Chancellor,  failed 
to  embarrass  Mary,  and  -Lord  Burghley  himself  more 
signally  failed  to  browbeat  her.  But  Cecil  had  his  re- 
venge ;  for  he  boasted  to  his  mistress  of  "  so  encountering 
her  with  his  reason  and  experience  in  such  sort,  as  she  had 
not  that  advantage  she  looked  for."  Swiftly  the  Commis- 
sion adjourned  to  Westminster,  and  did  what  was  required 
of  them.  A  verdict  of  guilty  was  signed,^  not  only  by  the 
thirty-six  Commissioners  present  at  Fotheringay,  but  by 
twelve  who  were  absent.  Why  not?  The  twelve  who 
were  absent  saw  fully  as  much  evidence  of  the  prisoner's 
guilt  as  those  who  were  present. 

In  connection  with  this  trial,  we  have  never  seen  cited 
the  very  remarkable  opinion  of  Lord  Brougham,  who  sums 
up  the  whole  case  in  a  compact  legal  argument,  to  which 
any  effective  reply,  in  whole  or  in  part,  would  be  exceed- 
ingly difficult. 

1.  "  When  Mary  took  refuge  in  England,  all  her  previous 
misconduct  ^  gave  Elizabeth  no  kind  of  title  to  detain  her 
as  a  prisoner,  nor  any  right  even  to  deliver  her  up  as  pris- 
oner at  the  request  of  the  Scots,  had  they  demanded  her. 

2.  "  In  keeping  her  a  prisoner  for  twenty  years,  under 
various  pretexts,  Elizabeth  gave  her  ample  license  and 
complete  justification  for  whatever  designs  she  might  form 
to  regain  her  liberty. 

3.  "The  conspiracy  of  Norfolk  looked  only  to  the 
maintaining  of  her  strict  rights,  the  restoration  of  her 
personal  liberty,  and  her  marriage  with  that  ill-fated 
nobleman,  which  she  was  willing  to  solemnize  as  soon  as 
she  could  be  divorced  from  Bothwell. 

4.  "  Babington's  conspiracy  included  rebellion,  and  also 

1  With  the  exception  of  Lord  Zouch,  on  the  separate  charge  of  assassina- 
tion. 

2  Lord  Brougham  had  no  h"ghts  on  Mary's  previous  history  beyond  the 
versions  of  Hume  and  Robertson. 


294 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


the  assassination  of  Elizabeth  ;  and  great,  and  certainly 
very  fruitless,  pains  are  taken  by  Mary's  partisans  to  rebut 
the  proofs  of  her  having  joined  it.  She,  indeed,  never 
pretended  to  resist  the  proof  that  she  was  a  party  to  the 
conspiracy  in  general ;  she  only  denied  her  knowledge  of 
the  projected  assassination.  But,  supposing  her  to  have 
been  also  cognizant  of  that,  it  seems  not  too  relaxed  a 
view  of  duty  to  hold  that  one  sovereign  princess,  detained 
unjustifiably  in  captivity  by  another  for  twenty  years,  has 
a  right  to  use  even  extreme  measures  of  revenge.  In  self- 
defense,  all  means  are  justifiable,  and  Mary  had  no  other 
means  than  war  to  the  knife  against  her  oppressor. 

5.  "  For  this  accession  to  Babington's  conspiracy,  chiefly; 
she  was  brought  to  trial  by  that  oppressor  who  had  violated 
every  principle  of  justice,  and  every  form  of  law,  in  hold- 
ing her  a  prisoner  for  twenty  years. 

6.  "  Being  convicted  on  this  trial,  the  sentence  was 
executed  by  Elizabeth's  express  authority;  although,  with 
a  complication  of  falsehood  utterly  disgusting,  and  which 
holds  her  character  up  to  the  scorn  of  mankind  in  all  ages, 
she  pretended  that  it  had  been  done  without  her  leave, 
and  against  her  will,  and  basely  ruined  the  unfortunate 
man,  who,  yielding  to  her  commands,  had  conveyed  to  be 
executed  the  orders  she  had  signed  with  her  own  hand." 


CHAPTER  XXVI. 


THE  WARRANT. 

"  For  the  clumsy,  cunning,  and  brazen  mendacity  with  which  her 
triumphant  rival  (Elizabeth)  concluded  the  scene,  no  one  has  any  pallia- 
tion."—  BuKTOX,  History  of  Scutland,  vol.  vi.  p.  20. 

The  crushing  calamities  and  deep  sorrow  of  the  Queen 
of  Scots  were  contemphited  with  u  cahn  and  cheerful  res- 
ignation by  Elizabeth  and  her  secretaries.  While  the  trial 
was  in  progress  the  kind  English  Queen  sent  messages 
by  Davison  expressing  great  desit;^  to  hear  how  her  Spirit 
and  her  3Ioon  (her  pet  names  for  Cecil  (Lord  Burghley) 
and  Walsingham)  found  themselves  after  "  their  long  and 
distressing  journey."  From  the  same  correspondence  we 
find,  too,  that  Mr.  Fronde's  airy  insolence  in  designating 
the  Scottish  Queen  as  "  The  Lady  at  Tutbury,"  has  not 
even  the  poor  merit  of  originality,  for  Burghley  speaks  of 
her  to  Elizabeth  as  "  The  Queen  of  the  Castle." 

Parliament  united  in  petition  that  the  death  sentence  be 
carried  to  speedy  execution.  To  whom  Elizabeth  replied 
that  she  would  deliberate,  and  "  commend  herself  to  be 
directed  by  God's  holy  Spirit."  Then  Sir  James  Croft 
moved  that  "some  earnest  and  devout  pi  ayer  to  God,  to  in- 
cline he^  majesty's  heart  to  grant  the  petition,  be  printed 
for  daily  use  in  the  House  of  Commons  and  by  the  mem- 
bers in  their  chambers  and  lodgings."  The  Speaker,  one 
Puckering,  reminded  her  majesty  that  by  their  oath  of 
association  they  were  bound  to  kill  the  Queen  of  Scots. 
To  do  it  without  license  would  be  to  incur  the  indignation 
of  her  majesty  ;  not  to  do  it  would  be  for  them  perjury  and 
the  indignation  of  God.    To  her  majesty  they  held  up  the 


296 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


awful  examples  of  "  Saul  who  spared  Agag,  and  of  Ahab 
who  spared  Benhadad  —  wicked  princes  whom  God  had 
deUvered  into  their  hands,  of  purpose  to  be  slain  to  death 
by  them." 

If  Mr.  Froude  is  correct  in  saying  of  Elizabeth,  "  She 
could  not  write  an  English  sentence  without  the  most  in- 
tricate involutions,"  she  would  appear  to  carry  the  same 
quality  into  her  verbal  communications.  Her  reply  to 
Parliament  was  :  — 

"  If  I  should  say  that  I  meant  not  to  grant  your  petition,  by  my 
faith,  I  should  say  unto  you  more  perhaps  than  I  mean.  And  if 
I  should  say  that  I  meant  to  grant  it,  I  should  tell  you  more  than 
is  fit  for  you  to  know.  Thus  I  must  dehver  unto  you  an  answer 
answerless."  i 

Although  an  enemy  of  every  member  of  the  house  of 
Guise,  the  French  King  could  not  stand  idly  by  and  see 
Mary  Stuart  murdered.  He  dispatched  Believre  as  spe- 
cial Ambassador  to  the  English  court,  Chateauneuf  being 
already  there.  Elizabeth  wanted  delay  in  the  remon- 
strances of  the  French  King.  She  is  credited  with  a  ready 
wit,  and  here  is  a  specimen  of  it.  Young  Stafford,  brother 
of  Elizabeth's  Ambassador  at  Paris,  invented  a  story  charg- 
ing Chateauneufs  secretary  with  entering  into  a  conspir- 
acy against  the  Queen's  life.  This  Stafford,  says  Mr. 
Froude,  was  a  notorious  reprobate,"  which  is  altogether 
likely.  He  was  a  hardened  reprobate,  too,  and  a  good 
actor,  for  he  reiterated  the  charge  in  presence  of  Chateau- 
neuf and  the  council,  and  even  accused  the  Ambassador 
himself  with  guilty  knowledge.  The  "  accomplished  ac- 
tress "  at  the  palace  was  meantime  a  la  hauteur  de  son  role, 
the  council  had  caught  her  histrionic  inspiration,  for,  as  our 
histrionic  historian  assures  us,  they  "  gravely  told  "  (xii.  339) 
the  Ambassador  that  "  he  had  been  guilty  of  a  serious  fault." 

The  impudent  farce  was  kept  up  as  long  as  it  was 

1  A  reply  which  has  been  styled  oracular  for  its  ambiguity  and  im- 
posture. 


FAKCE  AND  FORGKHY. 


207 


thought  necessary ;  then  an  apology-  was  made  for  the 
inconveniences  to  which  the  Ambassador  had  been  sub- 
jected by  an  ignoble  plot  of  which  Elizabeth  herself  was 
the  instigator.    (See  xii.  338.) 

The  interpolation  and  forgery  then  in  vogue  in  English 
court  procedure  manifested  itself  even  in  this  miserable 
affair.  Forged  and  falsified  documents  were  used  by 
"  these  charming  English  councilors,"  no  original  docu- 
ments being  presented,  but  copies  only,  in  which  they  add 
or  omit  what  they  please.^ 

Meantime  popular  anger  had  been  aroused  and  kept  up 
against  the  French  and  against  Mary  Stuart  by  this  sup- 
posed discovery  of  a  supposed  plot  against  the  life  of  the 
Queen.  The  French  secretary  was  kept  imprisoned  in  the 
Tower  "after  the  groundlessness  of  the  charge  had  been 
confessed,  lest,"  —  says  Mr.  Froude  with  a  knowing  wink 
to  his  reader,  —  "lest  it  should  seem  as  if  he  had  been 
arrested  without  cause."  When  all  was  over,  Elizabeth 
entertained  the  French  Ambassador  with  a  merry  joke 
concerning  it.  On  the  vulgar  infamy  of  this  disgraceful 
aifair,  Mr  Fronde's  final  opinion  is  that  "  it  formed  a  poor 
and  undignified  episode  in  the  tragedy  in  which  it  was  im- 
bedded, and  it  tarnished  a  proceeding  which  so  far  had 
been  moderate  and  just." 

"Tarnished,"  is  good.  So  also  is  "moderate."  "Just," 
is  simply  admirable. 

Mr.  Froude's  "  History  of  England"  has-been  charac- 
terized as  a  piece  of  "masking  and  mumming,  with  infer- 
ence, supposition,  and  insinuation,  with  forced  citations 
and  patched  references."  To  which  may  be  added,  false 
translations.^     These  characteristics  abound  throughout 

1  "  Avaient  ces  beaux  conseillers  d'Angleterre  forf?e,  falsifid,  et  compost 
toutes  telles  escritures  qu'ils  avaient  voullu  sur  ce  faict  par  eux  inventd 
et  projette.  Car  il  faut  notter  que  jamais  ne  produisent  les  mesmes /jeeces 
originaulx  des procedures,  mais  seulement  des  copies,  esqueiles  lis  ajoutent 
on  diminuent  ce  qu'il  leur  plait."  —  Villeroy's  Regisire  in  Life  of  Lord 
Egerton,  p.  101. 

2  See  a  flagrant  instance  at  xii.  308. 


203 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


the  narration  of  the  events  from  Walshigham's  initiation 
of  the  plot  to  take  Mary  Stuart's  life,  down  to  the  closing 
scene  of  the  tragedy  at  Fotheringay.  Elizabeth  dallied 
and  hesitated  between  her  appreciation  of  the  infamy  of 
the  act  and  her  desire  for  the  death  of  the  victim.  To 
her  aid,  for  the  eyes  of  the  nineteenth  century,  skilful  his- 
torian brings  a  supposed  public  clamor  for  the  execution. 
Elizabeth's  "  clumsy,  cunning,  and  brazen  mendacity,"  re- 
ferred by  Mr.  Burton,  are  found  in  her  denial  of  wishing 
the  execution  forwarded  and  her  persecution  of  Secretary 
Davison,  who  was  guilty  of  obeying  her  orders.  After  she 
had  signed  the  warrant  for  the  execution,  she  told  Davi- 
son of  a  dream  she  had  the  night  before  ;  the  Queen  of 
Scots,  she  dreamed,  was  executed.  "  She  laughed  as  she 
was  speaking."  (xii.  349.)  *'  Had  she  changed  her  mind  ? 
Did  she  not  mean  to  go  on  with  the  execution  ?  "  inquired 
Davison. 

"  Yea  !  by  God,"  was  her  reply,  "  but  it  might  receive 
a  better  form,  for  this  casteth  the  whole  burthen  upon 
myself"  And  here,  we  trust,  the  reader  will  give  his  best 
attention  to  Mr.  Froude's  gentle  reflection  :  "  ElizahetJis 
conduct  was  not  noble,  but  it  was  natural  and  'pardonable^ 

Effort  had  been  made  to  cast  a  part  of  this  "  burthen  " 
upon  Sir  Amyas  Paulet  by  requesting  him  to  assassinate 
Mary.  He  chose  not  to  understand  the  drift  of  Elizabeth's 
letter  "  To  my  Loving  Amias ; "  and  a  modern  historian 
can  see  no  malice  in  the  celebrated  "  non  omnibus  datum  " 
epistle.  Afterwards  Walsingham  wrote  to  Paulet  (and 
Drury)  without  involution  or  honeyed  speech  :  — 

"  We  find  by  a  speech  lately  made  by  her  majesty,  that  she 
doth  note  in  you  both  a  lack  of  that  care  and  zeal  for  her  service 
that  she  looketh  for  at  your  hands,  in  that  you  have  not  all  this 
time  (of  yourselves  without  further  provocation)  found  out  some 
way  to  shorten  the  life  of  the  Scots  Queen,  considering  the  great 
peril  she  is  hourly  subject  to,  so  long  as  the  said  Queen  shall 
live." 


THE  CROWNING  ACT. 


299 


Now  Paulet  was  Mary  Stuart's  bitter  enemy.  He  had 
been  to  her  a  cruel  jailer  and  an  unjust  judge ;  he  had 
behaved  towards  her  with  ruffianly  brutality,  and  was 
ready,  in  case  her  rescue  were  attempted,  to  slay  her  with 
his  own  hand ;  but  he  was  not  a  sneaking  assassin. 
He  answered  Walsingham,  expressing  his  great  grief  and 
bitterness  — 

"  As  living  to  see  this  unhappy  day  in  which  I  am  required,  by 
directions  of  ray  most  gracious  sovereign,  to  do  an  act  which  God 
and  the  law  forbiddeth.  My  goods  and  life  are  at  her  majesty's 
disposition,  and  I  am  ready  to  lose  them  the  next  morrow  if  it 
shall  please  her.  But  God  forbid  I  should  make  so  foul  a  ship- 
wreck of  my  conscience,  or  leave  so  great  a  blot  to  my  poor 
posterity,  and  shed  blood  without  law  or  warrant." 

The  historian  Burton  finds  in  "  that  terrible  letter  "  of 
Walsingham  "one  of  the  foulest  blots  in  English  history;" 
but  why  it  should  be  as  foul  as  the  suggestion  or  com- 
mand which  inspired  it,  we  cannot  see.  Nor  indeed,  in 
reality,  can  Mr.  Burton,  and  he  says  so,  but  with  qualifica- 
tion of  hypothesis. 

A  greater  Scot  than  he  sees  the  case  plainly,  and  states 
it  forcibly :  "  With  a  complication  of  falsehood  utterly 
disgusting,  and  which  holds  her  character  up  to  the  scorn 
of  mankind  in  all  ages,  she  pretended  that  it  had  been 
done  without  her  leave  and  against  her  will."  Elsewhere 
he  says :  — 

"  But  if  there  be  any  one  passage  of  her  life  which  calls  forth 
this  sentiment  (disgust)  more  than  another,  it  is  her  vile  conduct 
respecting  the  execution  of  Mary  Stuart  —  her  hateful  duplicity, 
her  execrable  treachery  towards  the  instruments  she  used  and 
sacrificed,  her  cowardly  skulking  behind  those  instruments  to 
escape  the  censures  of  the  world.  This  was  the  crowning  act 
of  a  whole  life  of  despicable  fraud  and  hypocrisy."  (Lord 
Brougham.) 

In  the  last  letter  Mary  Stuart  wrote  Elizabeth  she  reit- 


300 


MARY  QUEEN  OF'  SCOTS. 


erated  the  denial  she  had  always  uniformly  made  of  parti- 
cipation in  any  design  upon  Elizabeth's  life  :  — 

"  As  to  practicing  any  ill  against  you,  I  declare,  in  the  presence 
of  God,  I  am  not  guilty  of  that  crime  ;  but  God  will  let  you  see 
the  truth  of  all  plainly  after  my  death." 

Her  letter  concludes  thus  :  — 

"  I  beseech  the  God  of  mercy  and  justice  to  enlighten  you  with 
his  Holy  Spirit,  and  to  give  me  the  grace  to  die  in  perfect  charity, 
as  I  endeavor  to  do,  pardoning  my  death  to  all  those  who  have 
either  caused  or  cooperated  in  it ;  and  this  will  be  my  prayer  to 

the  end  Accuse  me  not  of  presumption  if,  in  leaving  this 

world  and  preparing  myself  for  a  better,  I  remind  you  that  you 
will  have  one  day  to  give  an  account  of  your  charge,  in  like  man- 
ner as  those  who  have  preceded  you  in  it,  and  that  my  blood  and 
the  misery  of  my  country  will  be  remembered  ;  wherefore,  from 
the  earliest  dawn  of  our  comprehension  we  ought  to  dispose  our 
minds  to  make  things  temporal  yield  to  those  of  eternity.  From 
Fotheringay  this  19th  of  December,  1586. 

"  Your  sister  and  cousin,  wrongfully  a  prisoner. 

"  Marie  Hoyne."  i 

1  See  Appendix  No.  14  for  another  epistle  of  Mary  Stuart  to  Queen  Eliza- 
beth. Whether  we  consider  the  circumstances  under  which  it  was  written, 
the  compact  logic  of  its  reasoning,  the  energy  of  its  style,  the  beauty  of 
its  diction,  or  the  pathos  of  its  tone,  it  is  one  of  the  most  remarliable  letters 
in  the  history  of  literature;  and  it  is  doubtful  if  any  defender  of  the  un- 
fortunate Queen  has  better  succeeded  in  presenting  the  merits  of  her  case 
and  the  argument  for  her  innocence,  than  has  Mary  Stuart  herself  in  this 
production. 


CHAPTER  XXVII. 


THE  SCAFFOLD. 

"  As  for  the  victim,  no  martyr,  conscious  of  a  life  of  unsullied  purity, 

ever  met  her  fate  with  greater  dignity  She  did  her  expiation  with 

a  noble  simplicity.  For  nTany  years  she  had  submitted  quietly  to  restraints 
and  humiliations,  rather  as  one  who  was  in  that  shape  raising  herself  above 
her  persecutor,  than  from  weakness  or  servility."  —  Burton,  History  of  Scot- 
land, vol.  vi.  p.  22. 

"  The  circumstances  of  her  death  equal  that  of  an  ancient  martyr." — 
John  Wesley. 

For  months  Mary  Stuart  had  been  under  sentence  of 
death.  For  weeks  the  warrant  for  her  execution  had  been 
signed.  And  yet,  after  so  much  delay,  the  warning  that 
she  must  prepare  to  die  at  last  came  suddenly,  and  the 
time  allowed  was  short.  On  the  afternoon  of  the  7th  of 
February,  the  Earls  of  Shrewsbury  and  Kent  arrived.  Ad- 
mitted to  her  presence,  the  death-warrant  was  read  to  her. 
The  Queen  listened  in  dignified  composure,  and  thanked 
them  for  their  message.  Death,  she  said,  should  be  wel- 
come to  her,  although  "  brought  about  by  artifice  and  fraud." 
Then,  laying  her  hand  on  a  Testament,  she  called  upon 
God  to  witness  that,  "As  for  the  death  of  your  sovereign, 
I  never  imagined,  never  sought  it,  never  consented  to  it." 

The  Earl  of  Kent  objected  that  the  book  was  a  popish 
Testament,  and  the  oath,  therefore,  of  no  value.  It  is  a 
Catholic  Testament,"  rejoined  Mary ;  "  on  that  account  I 
prize  it  the  more ;  and,  therefore,  according  to  your  own 
reasoning,  you  ought  to  judge  my  oath  the  more  satis- 
factory." 

She  then  requested,  as  the  single  indulgence  she  would 
ask,  that  she  might  have  the  attendance  of  her  almoner, 


S02 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


who  was  still  in  the  castle.  Her  request,  she  was  told, 
could  not  be  granted.  "  It  was  contrary  to  the  law  of  God 
and  the  law  of  the  land,  and  would  endanger  hoth  the  souh 
and  bodies  of  the  Coni7nissioners."  Kent  then  suggested 
that  she  should  receive  the  Dean  of  Peterborough,  a  very 
learned  the'ologian,  who  would  instruct  her  in  the  truth, 
and  show  her  the  error  of  the  false  religion  in  which  she 
had  been  brought  up ;  with  more  to  the  same  effect. 
The  Queen  declined  the  services  of  the  dean.  She  would 
die  in  the  religion  in  which  she  had  been  baptized. 
"  Madame,"  interrupted  the  earl,  "  your  life  would  be  the 
death  of  our  religion,  and  your  death  will  be  its  preserva- 
tion." 

In  reply  to  her  question  when  she  was  to  die,  —  "  To- 
morrow morning  at  eight  o'clock,"  was  the  answer. 

"  That  is  very  sudden,"  said  the  Queen,  and  asked  for 
some  slight  extension  of  the  time.  "  It  is  not  in  our  power," 
replied  the  earl ;  "  you  must  die  to-morrow  at  the  hour  we 
have  named."    And  so  they  parted. 

Calm  and  self-possessed  herself,  the  Queen's  greatest 
effort  was  now  to  check  the  wild  "sobbing  and  frantic  grief 
of  her  attendants.  To  her  physician  she  remarked,  "They 
said  I  was  to  die  for  attempting  the  life  of  the  Queen  of 
England,  of  which,  you  know,  I  am  innocent ;  but  now  this 
earl  lets  out  the  fact  that  it  is  on  account  of  my  religion." 

Soon  was  heard  the  noise  of  hammering  on  the  planks 
of  the  scaffold  in  the  great  hall  adjoining.  With  this  sound 
ringing  in  her  ears,  she  passed  the  entire  night  in  writing 
letters,  and  her  will,  and  in  her  devotions.  At  four  o'clock 
she  sought  a  short  repose  on  her  pillow,  but  her  attendants 
remarked  that  she  did  not  sleep,  and  that  her  lips  were 
constantly  moving  as  in  prayer.  At  six  o'clock  she  told 
her  ladies  "  she  had  but  two  hours  to  live,"  and  to  "  dress 
her  as  for  a  festival." 

We  have  witnessed  the  struggle  with  the  Earl  of  Kent 
for  the  rights  of  conscience.    Now  came  another  on  a 


THE  DEATH-WARRANT. 


303 


question  of  humanity  —  of  decency.  They  had  already 
entered  the  hall.  The  Queen  asked  that  she  might  have 
tha  attendance  of  her  women  to  disrobe  her.  —  Refused  ! 

"  I  trust,  my  lords,  that  your  mistress,  being  a  maiden 
Queen,  will  vouchsafe,  in  regard  of  womanhood,  that  I  may 
have  some  of  my  own  women  about  me  at  my  death.  A 
far  greater  courtesy  might  be  extended  to  me,  even  were 
I  a  woman  of  far  meaner  calling." 

No  answer. 

"  I  am  cousin  to  your  Queen,  my  lords,  descended  of  the 
blood  royal  of  Henry  VII.,  a  married  Queen  of  France, 
and  the  anointed  Queen  of  Scotland." 

Upon  consultation,  the  earls  consented  to  allow  two  of 
her  women  to  attend  her. 

On  her  way  to  the  hall,  Mary  was  met  by  her  faithful 
servant,  Andrew  Melville,  who  threw  himself  on  his  knees 
before  her,  wringing  his  hands  in  uncontrollable  agony. 
"  Woe  is  me,"  he  said,  "  that  it  should  be  my  hard  lot  to 
carry  back  such  tidings  to  Scotland." 

"Weep  not,  Melville,  my  good  and  faithful  servant; 
thou  should'st  rather  rejoice  to  see  the  end  of  the  long 
troubles  of  Mary  Stuart.  This  world  is  vanity,  and  full  of 
sorrows.  I  am  a  Catholic,  thou  Protestant ;  but  as  there 
is  but  one  Christ,  I  charge  thee,  in  his  name,  to  bear  wit- 
ness that  I  die  firm  to  my  religion,  a  true  Scotchwoman, 
and  true  to  France."  And  then,  with  a  message  to  her 
son,  she  concluded :  "  May  God  forgive  them  that  have 
thirsted  for  my  blood." 

On  account  of  her  lameness,  the  Queen  had  descended 
the  stairway  to  the  hall  with  difficulty,  and  was  obliged  to 
accept  the  offer  of  Paulet's  assistance  to  mount  the  two 
steps  to  the  scaffold.  "  I  thank  you,  sir,"  she  said  ;  "  it  is 
the  last  trouble  I  will  ever  give  you."  The  death-warrant 
was  again  read  by  Beale,  in  a  loud  voice.  One  of  its  re- 
citals is,  that  "execution  against  her  person"  was  to  be 
done,  "  as  well  for  the  cause  of  the  gospel  and  true  religion 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


of  Christ,  as  for  the  peace  of  the  whole  reahii."  Then  the 
Dean  of  Peterborough  began  to  address  her :  His  mis- 
tress, he  said,  was  careful  of  the  welfare  of  her  (Mark's) 
soul,  and  had  sent  him  to  bring  her  out  of  that  creed,  in 
which,  continuing,  she  must  be  damned."  Mary  begged 
him  not  to  concern  himself  with  her.  He  persisted.  She 
turned  away.  He  walked  around  the  scaffold,  again  con- 
fronted her,  and  again  he  began. 

The  scene  was  horrible  and  scandalous.  The  Earl  of 
Kent  bade  him  stop  preaching  and  begin  to  pray.  He  did 
so,  and  his  prayer  was  the  echo  of  his  sermon. 

But  now,  Mary  heeded  him  no  more,  and  took  refuge  in 
her  own  prayers  and  the  repetition  of  the  psalms  for  the 
dying.  She  prayed  for  her  son,  and  for  Queen  Elizabeth, 
for  the  peace  and  prosperity  of  Scotland;  for  her  enemies, 
and  for  herself  She  then  arose,  crucifix  in  hand,  and 
exclaimed:  "As  Thy  arms,  O  God,  were  stretched  out 
upon  the  cross,  so  receive  me  into  the  arms  of  Thy  mercy, 
and  forgive  me  my  sins." 

"  Madame,"  said  the  Earl  of  Kent,  "  it  were  better  for 
you  to  leave  such  popish  trumperies,  and  bear  Him  in 
your  heart." 

"  Can  I,"  she  replied,  "  hold  the  representation  of  my 
crucified  Redeemer  in  my  hand  without  bearing  him  at  the 
same  time  in  my  heart?"  Then  she  knelt  down,  saying: 
"  0  Lord,  into  Thy  hands  I  commend  my  spirit." 

The  first  blow  of  the  executioner  inflicted  a  ghastly 
wound  on  the  lower  part  of  the  skull.  Not  a  scream,  nor 
groan  —  not  a  sigh  escaped  her,  but  the  convulsion  of  her 
features  showed  the  horrible  suffering  caused  by  the 
wound.  The  eye-witness  of  the  execution  whose  account 
is  published  in  Teulet,  thus  relates  this  incident:  "There- 
upon the  headsman  brought  down  his  axe,  but,  missing  the 
proper  place,  gave  her  a  terrible  blow  on  the  upper  ex- 
tremity of  the  neck,  but  —  worthy  of  an  unexampled  forti- 


THE  AXE. 


305 


tude  —  she  remained  perfectly  still,  and  did  not  even 
heave  a  sigh."  ^ 

At  the  second  stroke,^  the  neck  was  severed  from  the 
body,  and  held  up  to  the  gaze  of  the  bystanders.  The  exe- 
cutioner repeated  his  formula,  "  God  save  Queen  Eliza- 
beth." 

"  So  perish  all  her  enemies,"  added  the  Dean  of  Peter- 
borough. 

"  So  perish  all  the  enemies  of  the  gospel,"  exclaimed  the 
Earl  of  Kent. 

But  not  one  voice  was  heard  to  say  "  Amen  ! "  ^ 

1  Et  sur  ce  I'executeur  frappa  do  sa  hache,  mars  faillant  a,  trouver  la 
jointure,  luy  donna  un  grand  coup  sur  le  chignon  du  col,  mais,  ce  qui  fut 
digne  d'une  Constance  non  pareille,  est  que  Ton  ne  vitremuer  aucune  partie 
de  son  corps,  ny  pas  seulement  jetter  un  soupir." — Vray  Rapport,  Teulet. 

2  Some  authorities  say  the  third. 
8  Lingard. 

20 


CHAPTER  XXVIIL 


HISTORIAN  AND  HEADSMAN. 

"  It  is  so  painful  to  dwell  upon  the  words  and  actions  of  a  poor  woman 
in  her  moments  of  miser3\"  —  History  of  England^  by  J.  A.  Froude,  ^ 
vol.  ii.  p.  455. 

"  It  is  a  miserable  duty  to  be  compelled  to  search  for  these  indications  of 
human  infirmities;  above  all,  wlien  the}^  are  the  infirmities  of  a  lady  whose 
faults,  let  them  liave  been  what  they  would,  were  so  fearfully  and  terribly 
expiated."  —  History  of  England,  by  J.  A.  Froude,  vol.  i.  p.  179. 

We  have  already  stated  that  a  serious  objection  to  Mr- 
Froude  as  a  historian  is  his  total  want  of  a  uniform  stand- 
ard of  justice,  of  the  ethical  principle  which  estimates  ac- 
tions as  they  are  in  themselves  and  not  in  the  light  of 
personal  like  or  dislike  of  his  historical  personages.  Read 
the  two  passages  which  head  this  chapter.  They  are  spe- 
cimens of  the  "  outbursts  of  truest  pathos,"  of  tender  hu- 
man sympathy,"  so  lauded  by  one  of  his  admirers.  The 
historian  penned  them  with  reference  to  the  case  of  Anne 
Boleyn,  and  when  we  reach  his  narrative  of  Mary  Stuart's 
death  we  find  that  they  are  not  the  expression  of  any  abid- 
ing sentiment  or  belief,  but  mere  specimens  of  rhetoric  de 
circonstance,  to  be  classed  among  those  elaborate  impromptus 
carefully  labored  at  leisure  with  which  he  ornaments  his 
pages.  When  he  tells  us  of  Mary  Stuart's  death,  we  find 
that  so  fiir  from  being  painful  to  him  it  affords  him  the 
most  exquisite  delight  "  to  dwell  upon  the  words  and 
actions  of  a  poor  woman  in  her  moments  of  misery  ;  "  and 
we  further  find  that,  not  content  with  the  record  of  her 
vi^ords  and  actions  as  furnished  by  history,  he  finds  it  expe- 
dient to  invent  others  in  order  to  prolong  and,  if  possible, 
heighten  his  pleasure. 


MR.  FROUDE's  revenge. 


307 


Hollow  brass  and  tinkling  cymbal  too  is  his  "  miserable 
duty  to  be  compelled  to  search  for  human  infirmities,  above 
all  when  they  are  the  infirmities  of  a  lady^'  etc.,  when  we  find 
him  complacently  inviting  his  readers  to  join  with  him  in 
the  gaze  of  the  two  brutal  earls  at  the  scars  left  by  ill- 
ness on  the  shoulders  of  the  helpless  victim. 

If  Mr  Froude  really  believes  the  Queen  of  Scots  to  be 
the  guilty  woman  he  describes  —  and  we  seriously  doubt 
it ;  if  he  attaches  any  serious  signification  to  the  vitupera- 
tive abuse  he  showers  upon  her  throughout  his  work,  we 
can  well  imagine  the  bitter  disappointment  which  nmst 
have  seized  him  when,  contemplating  his  victim  at  the  hour 
of  death  and  on  the  edge  of  the  grave,  he  beholds  her  raised 
so  infinitely  above  her  persecutors  by  her  dignity  and 
Christian  resignation.  We  can  well  understand,  too,  how 
at  the  spectacle  of  what  his  more  conscientious  ally  (Bur- 
ton) calls  the  "  noble  simplicity  of  her  expiation,"  this  dis- 
appointment should  deepen  into  an  angry  rage  that  seeks 
revenge.  That  revenge  —  the  only  one  in  his  power  — 
he  has  taken. 

Friends  and  enemies  of  Mary  Stuart  —  sympathizers, 
proclaimers  of  her  guilt,  and  advocates  of  her  innocence  — 
have  written  concerning  that  most  remarkable  death  scene, 
of  which  several  descriptions  have  come  down  to  us;  but  no 
such  strange  and  shocking  narrative  as  that  of  Mr.  Froude 
has  ever  grieved  the  judicious  and  blotted  the  page  of 
history.  His  pen  alone  was  equal  to  such  a  performance. 
It  is  one  of  the  monstrosities  of  modern  literature,  and 
stands  on  "  a  bad  eminence." 

There  was  no  refinement  of  cruelt}',  there  was  no  excess 
of  brutality  left  uninflicted  on  that  unfortunate  woman  as 
she  stood  facing  the  axe  and  the  block.  One  would  think 
that  the  veriest  ruffian  stained  with  a  thousand  crimes 
would,  in  that  hour  supreme,  be  permitted  to  seek  and 
enjoy  unmolested  whatever  to  him  might  constitute  spirit- 
ual consolation.    But  it  was  not  allowed  this  dying  woman. 


808 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


The  only  religious  aid  she  required  was  denied  her,  although 
her  almoner  was  in  the  house.  A  man  whose  services  she 
declined,  bellowed  his  remonstrances  and  warnings  in  her 
ear,  telling  her  —  by  way  of  encouragement  —  that  she  was 
damned.  "  He  had  been  evidently  instructed  to  impair 
the  Catholic  complexion  of  the  scene,"  suggests  Mr. 
Froude.  We  think  it  highly  probable,  inasmuch  as  the 
official  report  states  that,  "  according  to  a  direction  that  he 
had  received  the  night  before,  he  would  have  made  a  godly 
admonition."  etc.  From  Kent  and  Shrewsbury  there  was 
nought  for  this  unhappy  woman  but  inhumanity  and  insult. 
And  all  this  seems  to  our  historian  not  only  eminently 
proper,  but  immensely  gratifying. 

Sensible  to  the  last,  he  keeps  up  his  "  masking  and 
mumming,  with  inference,  supposition,  and  insinuation,  with 
forced  citations,  and  patched  references."  His  narrative 
of  the  execution  is  little  more  than  a  paraphrase  of  the 
account  written  to  Burghley  by  Richard  Wigmore,  who  was 
Cecil's  secret  agent  and  present  at  the  scene. ^  But  the 
reader  must  not  suppose  from  the  fact  that  he  was  a  sort  of 
spy  and  that  his  account  appears  from  the  paraphrase  to 
be  so  heartless  and  cynical,  that  this  man  Wigmore  was 
utterly  vile.  He  would  not  seem  so  if  Mr.  Froude  had 
not  carefully  eliminated  from  his  letter  every  passage  and 
expression  which  renders  justice  to  Mary  Stuart's  dignity 
and  Christian  resignation. 

And  this  unhappy  woman's  bearing  on  the  scaffold,  — 
standing  thus  face  to  face  with  the  King  of  Terrors,  and 
preparing,  as  best  she  might  amid  inhuman  interruptions, 
to  meet  her  God,  was  all  —  so  Mr.  Froude  informs  us  — 
mere  acting  !  —  a  sacrilegious  invention  he  strives  to  bol- 
ster by  a  citation  from  the  anonymous  account  of  Mary's 
death  published  in  Teulet.  Mr.  Froude  falsifies  the  cita- 
tion and  falsifies  its  meaning.  Judge. 

1  To  this  are  added  a  few  details  from  other  sources. 


FALSIFIED  CITATION. 


309 


The  Original  Passage. 

"  Si  le  plus  parfait  tragiqiie 
qui  fust  jamais  venoit  h  present 
avec  un  desir  et  soing  indicible 
de  representer  sa  contenance, 
parolles  et  gestes  et  fa9on  de 
faire  sur  un  theatre,  il  pourrait 
meriter  quelques  louanges,  mais 
on  le  trouverait  court,  faisant 
demonstration  de  la  conte- 
nance naturelle  et  singuliere 
modestie  qui,  contre  toute  ex- 
pectation regnait  en  cette  prin- 
cesse,  tellement  que  a  grande 
peine  par  personnes  empruntees 
(se  pourrait  11  representer)." 

By  the  substitution  of  a  period  for  a  comma  at  the  end 
of  the  first  half  of  the  sentence,  and  by  the  total  omission 
of  the  latter  part,  the  idea  of  the  writer  is  left  undeveloped 
and  his  meaning  entirely  perverted.  That  it  was  written 
by  one  of  her  warmest  admirers  is  Mr.  Fronde's  assump- 
tion. On  the  contrary,  the  passage  itself  would  appear  to 
come  from  one  who  had  been  prejudiced  against  her.  So 
far  from  describing  "  her  bearing  as  infinitely  transcending 
the  power  of  the  most  accomplished  actor  to  represent "  — 
thus  leaving  in  doubt  whether  what  was  seen  in  her  was 
artifice  or  natural,  the  passage  states  the  powerlesness  of 
any  acting,  to  represent  the  manifestation  of  nature  in  "  the 
unaffected  expression  and  singular  modesty  which  dis- 
tinguished this  princess  ;  "  the  "  contre  toute  expectation," 
appearing  to  imply  some  previous  prejudice. 

Characteristically  ingenious  is  the  device  of  Mr.  Froude 
to  carry  out  and  give  force  to  his  dramatic  theory  by  dwell- 
ing on  Mary's  rich  dress  and  false  hair.  If  Mary  had  ar- 
rayed herself  otherwise  than  she  did,  her  costume  might 
have  been  properly  criticised  as  singular  and  affected.  It 


As  CITED  BY  Mr.  Froude. 
(xii.  3G2.) 
"  Si  le  plus  parfait  tragique 
qui  fust  jamais  venoit  b.  present 
avec  un  desir  et  soing  indicible 
de  representer  sa  contenance, 
parolles  et  gestes  et  fa9on  de 
faire  sur  un  theatre,  il  pourrait 
meriter  quelques  louanges,  mais 
on  le  trouverait  court." —  Vray 
Rapport,  etc. :  Teulet,  vol.  iv. 


310 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


was  in  strict  conformity  with  the  fashion  of  the  age,  of 
which  rich  dress  was  a  characteristic.  When  Elizabeth 
died,  slie  left  eighty  afters  or  wigs  ornamented  with  jewels. 
They  formed  at  the  time  a  part  of  every  lady's  wardrobe, 
and  were  of  various  colors.  Mary's  omission  to  wear  one 
would  have  been  thought  strange.  She  had  that  morning 
told  her  women  to  "  dress  her  as  for  a  festival."  Their 
choice  of  garments  was  naturally  for  the  richest  from  an 
assortment  by  no  means  large.  It  appears  that  under  her 
black  robe  Mary  Stuart  wore  a  sort  of  black  jacket.  Both 
these  were  taken  off  preparatory  to  the  execution,  and 
under  them  appeared  a  body  of  crimson  satin,  which  with 
her  petticoat  of  crimson,  and  a  pair  of  crimson  sleeves 
handed  her  by  one  of  her  ladies,  to  cover  her  naked  arms, 
made  the  dress  all  red  —  blood  red  from  head  to  foot,"  as 
Mr.  Froude  states  it  in  his  delight.  We  are  further  in- 
formed that  this  was  all  done  with  design,  and  that  "  the 
pictorial  effect  must  have  been  appalling."  We  venture  to 
surmise  that  a  Christian  about  to  stand  in  the  presence  of 
God  has  but  little  room  in  his  or  her  mind  for  '*  pictorial 
effects,"  and  that  Mary  Stuart's  thoughts  in  that  last  hour 
of  her  life  were  not  for  this  world.  But  see  how  power- 
•less  is  any  reasonable  surmise  in  the  presence  of  Mr. 
Fronde's  positive  knowledge,  for  we  have  his  assurance  that 
she  gave  the  subject  of  this  under-clothing  careful  study, 
and  had  her  own  motives  for  adopting  it.  Listen.  "  Her 
reasons  for  adopting  so  extraordinary  a  costume  must  be 
left  to  conjecture.  It  is  only  certain  ^  that  it  must  have  been 
carefully  studied,''  etc.  (xii.  359.)  When  the  head  of  the 
victim  was  laid  on  the  block,  the  executioner,  a  stalwart 
man,  brought  down  his  axe  ;  but  it  was  an  uncertainly 

1  A  distinguished  English  historan  aptly  remarks  that  "  Intuitive  cer- 
tainty is  beyond  the  reach  of  argument."  iJ.  A.  Froude,  \'o\.  xii.  p.  311.) 
But  this  is  said  in  connection  with  a  stern  rebuke  administered  by  liim  to 
persons  pretending  to  interpret  the  motives  of  Queen  Elizabeth  — "  those 
to  whom  it  has  been  given  to  have  a  perfect  insight  into  the  motives  of 
human  actions." 


HISTORIAN  AND  HEADSMAN. 


311 


directed  blow  and  only  inflicted  a  ghastly  wound.  We 
have  already  cited  the  passage  from  Mr.  Fronde's  favorite 
"  Vray  Rapport"  which  relates  this  incident.  He  does  not 
see  that  passage.  It  is  a  well  established  principle  of  that 
historian  that  no  one  who  conies  in  hostile  contact  with 
Mary  Stuart  shall  be  capable  of  error.  And  so  we  are 
told :  The  blow  fell  on  the  knot  of  the  handkerchief, 
and  scarcely  broke  the  skin." 

But  the  gratification^  the  joy  manifested  throughout  this 
narrative  of  brutality,  bigotry,  and  blood,  culminates  in  de- 
light when  he  tells  us  — 

"  The  labored  illusion  vanished.  The  lady  who  had  knelt  be- 
fore the  block  was  in  the  maturity  of  grace  and  loveliness.  The 
executioner,  when  he  raised  the  head,  as  usual,  to  show  it  to  the 
crowd,  exposed  the  withered  features  of  a  grizzled,  wrinkled  old 
woman." 

We  are  inclined  to  believe  that  what  was  seen  was  a 
face  whose  features  were  yet  convulsed  by  the  agonizing 
suffering  from  the  executioner's  first  blow.^ 

When  Mary  Stuart  bowed  her  head  to  the  axe  which 
should  end  her  sufferings,  the  executioner  remarked  that 
her  fingers  were  upon  the  block  in  such  a  position  under 
her  neck,  that  when  he  struck,  they  would  be  cut  off.  Th« 
man's  trade  was  death,  his  calling  brutal,  his  occupation 
bloody.  But  he  had  no  desire  needlessly  to  multiply  the 
horror  of  the  scene  by  maiming  and  mangling  even  a  body 
which  must,  the  next  instant,  be  a  lifeless  corpse  ;  and  he 
gently  removed  the  hands. 

The  example  of  this  social  pariah  should  have  com- 
mended itself  to  Mr.  Froude,  for  whom  it  is  not  enough 
that  this  woman  should  be  made  to  suffer  for  a  crime  of 
which  she  was  innocent  —  not  enough  that  inhuman  men 
should  mock  her  infirmities  in  that  awful  moment,' —  not 
enough  that  in  her  preparation  for  death  she  should  be 
denied  the  consolations  of  her  own  faith,  —  not  enough 
1  See  Appendix  No.  12. 


312 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


that  a  relijjious  bioot  should  be  ordered  to  thrust  himself 
between  the  victim  and  her  Maker  —  not  enough  that  she 
should  receive  vociferous  assurance  that  her  damnation 
was  certain. 

Not  enough  all  this.  He  must  do  more.  He  is  deter- 
mined that  Mary  Stuart  shall  not  thus  escape  him,  and  — 
standing  on  this  side  of  a  grave,  cold  in  the  shadow  of 
three  hundred  years  —  we  shudder  as  we  see  him  warm  up 
to  his  ghoul-like  task,  travestie  her  bearing,  mock  her 
words,  inventory  her  garments,  play  the  costumer,  degrade 
the  historian  into  a  man-milliner,  and —  falsifying  her  mo- 
tives —  blasphemously  challenge  as  dramatic  affectation  the 
last  appeal  of  a  poor  soul  to  God,  betray  a  revolting  satis- 
faction in  her  suffering,  positive  delight  in  the  discovery 
that  she  was  no  longer  in  the  maturity  of  grace  and  love- 
liness, and,  with  a  hideous  leer,  call  on  his  readers  to  feast 
with  him  their  gaze  on  the  withered  features  of  a  wrinkled 
old  woman,  assuring  them,  meanwhile,  that  she  leaves  the 
world  with  a  lie  on  her  lips  ! 

We  shrink  from  the  revolting  horror  of  the  picture  as 
we  wonder  at  its  mendacity. 

Decidedly,  the  headsman  with  his  bloody  axe  rises  in 
our  gaze,  beside  this  historian,  to  the  full  proportions  of  one 
of  nature's  noblemen. 


CHAPTER  XXIX. 


CONCLUSION. 

"The  one  primary  qualification  in  a  historian  is  that  he  should  inspire 
confidence  in  the  minds  of  educated  readers,  and  a  fair  belief  in  his  guid- 
ance.   Mr.  Froude  utterly  fails  to  do  this." —  London  Quarterly  Review. 

As  already  stated,  serious  doubt  exists  as  to  whether  or 
not  Mr.  Froude  really  believes  the  Queen  of  Scots  to  be 
the  guilty  woman  he  describes.^  We  have  a  theory  that, 
as  an  intelligent  gentleman,  and  as  one  who  has  had  before 
his  eyes  the  clearest  proofs  of  Mary  Stuart's  innocence,  he 
does  not  assuredly  credit  her  guilt,  nor  does  he  attach  the 
slightest  credit  to  Buchanan's  Msehoods  concerning  her. 

This  view  of  Mr.  Froude,  as  a  historian,  may  excite  some 
susprise.  Nevertheless,  we  are  satisfied  of  its  correctness, 
and  thus  explain  it. 

Mr.  Froude,  evidently,  does  not  approve  of  the  humdrum 
plodding  honesty  of  the  conscientious  historian  who,  in 
statements  concerning  the  great  dead  of  bygone  ages,  is 
profuse  in  authority,  sober  in  imputation  of  motives,  and 
totally  abstemious  in  flights  of  imagination.  He  is  dis- 
gusted with  the  blameless  inanity  of  sincerity,  with  the 
imprudent  weakness  of  telling  all  the  truth,  with  the  silly 
hesitation  to  be  unscrupulous  where  a  point  is  to  be  made, 
and  with  the  slow  pace  of  a  style  unadorned  by  fancy 
sketches  and  sensational  pictures. 

Thus  worshipping  art  more  than  truth,  he  resolved  to 
give  to  the  world  a  history  which  should  be  read  for  its 
piquancy  and  its  brilliancy  —  which  should  be  at  once 
better  than  a  novel  and  as  good  as  a  play. 

1  A  belief"  credible  only  to  those  who  form  opinions  by  their  wills,  and 
believe  or  disbelieve  as  they  choose."    (ii.  488.) 


314 


MARY  QUEEN  OF  SCOTS. 


Such,  it  seems  to  us,  was  his  high  purpose.  And  if  any 
object  that  we  attribute  to  this  distinguished  historian  a 
questionable  motive,  we  reply  that  we  have  the  best  author- 
ity for  so  doing,  and  that  we  frauie  our  opinion  on  a  prin- 
ciple which  Mr.  Fronde  himself  openly  declares  to  be  his. 
Speaking  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  our  historian  says  (xi.  27)  :  — 

"  How  she  worked  in  detail,  how  uncertain,  how  vacillat- 
ing, how  false  and  unscrupulous  she  could  be  when  oc- 
casion tempted,  has  appeared  already,  and  will  appear 
more  and  more  ;  but  her  object  in  itself  was  excellent ; 
AND  THOSE  WHO  PURSUE  HIGH  PURPOSES 
THROUGH  CROOKED  WAYS  DESERVE  BET- 
TER OF  MANKIND,  ON  THE  WHOLE,  THAN 
THOSE  WHO  PICK  THE] R  WAY  IN  BLAMELESS 
INANITY,  AND,  IF  INNOCENT  OF  ILL,  ARE 
EQUALLY  INNOCENT  OF  GOODr 


APPENDIX. 


No.  1. 

"  Catherine  de  Medicis  ne  devait  k  son  titre  de  reine  que 
I'honneur  de  donner  des  enfants  au  roi.  La  longue  contrainte 
ou  vecut  Catherine,  les  habitudes  de  froide  reserve  et  de  con- 
stantc  dissimulation  qu'elle  s'imposa  —  formerent  dans  I'ombre 
ce  g6nie  Machiavelique  et  ce  scepticisme  universel  qu'elle  de- 
ploya  dcpuis  dans  de  si  terribles  conjonctures."  —  Martin,  His- 
toire  de  France,  vol.  ix.  p.  471. 

No.  II. 

In  describing  the  entrance  of  Charles  and  his  mother  into  the 
council  hall  when  Charles  was  saluted  King,  Sismondi  says :  La 
reine  mere  ne  s'etait  point  flattee  de  trouver  un  tel  accord,  une 
telle  promptitude ;  accomtumee  ^  etre  peu  consulte'e,  peu  menagee, 
k  ce  que  sa  qualite  d'etrangere  excitat  contre  elle  la  defiance  et  la 
haine,  loin  de  compter  sur  ses  droits,  elle  ne  comptait  pas  me  me 
sur  ceux  de  son  fils,  ....  elle  n'aimait  personne,  et  n'etait 
aimee  de  personne."  —  Histoire  des  F?'anQais,  vol.  xviii.  p.  187. 

"  Catherine  de  Medicis,  qui  depuis  vingt  sept  ans  qu'elle  etait 
en  France,  avait  toujours  ete  ecartee  du  pouvoir,  loin  d'etre 
reconnue  comme  ayant  droit  k  la  tutelle  ou  a  la  regence  de  son 
fils,  se  voyait  comme  femme  et  comme  etrangere  I'objet  d'une 
violente  jalousie."  —  Sismondi,  Histoire  des  Fran(;aiSj  yo\.  xviii. 
p.  185. 

No.  III. 

M.  Mignet,  a  distinguished  French  historian,  has  written  a 
"  Histoire  de  Marie  Stuart,"  in  the  preparation  of  which  he  ap- 
pears to  be  the  victim  of  a  work  constantly  cited  by  him  as 
**Memoires  de  I'Estat  de  la  France  sous  Charles  IX."  Many 


816 


APPENDIX. 


scholars  familiar  with  the  literature  of  the  Mary  Stuart  contro- 
versy failed  to  recognize  this  work  as  an  authority  heretofore 
received.  On  examination  the  "  Memoires  "  turn  out  to  be  noth- 
ing more  than  a  French  translation  of  Buchanan's  "  Detection," 
and  of  the  silver-casket  letters  with  an  absurdly  ambitious  title. 
"With  this  short  explanation  the  reader  will  readily  see  in  what 
light  Mary  Stuart  must  be  made  to  appear  in  M.  Mignet's  pages. 
We  have  Buchanan  ail  over  again.  He  also  quotes  De  Thou 
without  appearing  to  be  aware  that  De  Thou  also  is  a  mere  repe- 
tition of  Buchanan.  Away  from  this  source  of  inspiration,  M. 
Mignet  displays  many  of  the  traits  that  have  won  for  his  other 
historical  works  such  high  appreciation. 

No.  IV. 

"  Apres  la  mort  de  son  mari,  la  jeune  veuve  de  Francois  11.  qui 
s'etait  attire  la  haine  de  sa  belle  mere  Catherine  de  Medicis  en 
servant  trop  vivement  les  interets  de  ses  oncles  de  Guise,  se  retira 
en  Lorraine  durant  quelques  mois;  ses  oncles  qui  ne  I'aimaient 
que  comme  un  instrument  utile  a  leur  politique,  la  pi'esserent,  la 
forcerent  pour  ainsi  dire  de  retourner  en  Ecosse  pour  tacher  d'y 
relever  le  parti  catholique.  La  pauvre  Marie  partit  avec  de- 
sespoir."  —  Martin,  Histoire  de  France,  vol.  x.  p.  17  7. 

No.  V. 

PRINCE  ALEXANDER  LABANOFF. 

"  Lettres,  Instructions,  et  Memoires  de  Marie  Stuart,  Reine  d' Ecosse, 
puhlies  sur  les  originaux  et  les  Manuscrits  du  State  Paper  Office 
de  Londres,  et  des  principales  archives  hihliotlieques  de  V Europe." 
7  vols.  8vo.  London  and  Paris. 

This  admirable  collection  is  the  result  of  fourteen  years'  re- 
search among  state  archives,  collections,  and  libraries  throughout 
Europe.  It  is  composed  mainly  of  letters  and  documents  written 
by  Mary  Stuart.  They  number  seven  hundred  and  thirty-six 
(736),  of  which  more  than  four  hundred  were  unknown  until  pub- 
lished in  this  work.  Out  of  these  four  hundred  new  letters,  about 
two  hundred  found  in  the  English  State  Paper  Office,  were  mostly 
intercepted  letters  of  Mary  Stuart  which  never  reached  their 
destination.    In  these  papers  and  letters  the  reader  may  see 


APPENDIX. 


317 


Mary  Stuart's  soul  and  intellect  reflected  almost  day  by  day 
throughout  her  reign,  and  no  man  can  read  them  and  not  be  im- 
pressed by  the  elevation  of  her  mind,  the  soundness  of  her  judg- 
ment, and  the  purity  of  her  thoughts.  No  man,  moreover,  can 
read  them  and  believe  that  these  letters  and  the  casket-letters 
could  ever  possibly  come  from  the  same  source. 

No.  VI. 

EXTRACT  FROM  A  CONTEMPORARY  BALLAD  (1568). 

*'  For  they,  to  seem  more  innocent  of  this  most  heinous  deed. 
Did  forthwith  catch  four  murderers,  and  put  to  death  with  speed; 
As  Hepburn,  Dalgleisli,  Powry  too,  John  Hay  made  up  the  mess; 
Which  four,  when  they  were  put  to  death,  tlie  treason  did  confess, 
And  said  that  Moray,  Morton  too,  with  others  of  that  rout, 
Were  guilty  of  that  murder  vile,  though  now  they  look  so  stout. 
Yet  some  perchance  may  think  that  I  speak  for  affection  here, 
Though  I  would  so,  three  thousand  can  herein  true  witness  bear, 
Who  present  were  as  well  as  I  at  the  execution  time. 
And  heard  how  these,  in  conscience  prickt,  confessed  who  did  the  crime." 
Contemporary  Ballad,  Tom  Treuth,  State  Paper  MS.,  December,  1568. 

No.  VII. 

BOND  MADE  BY  A  NUMBER  OF  THE  NOBILITY  IN  FAVOR  OF 
THE  EARL  OF  BOTHWELL,  19TH  APRIL,  1567. 

"  We  undersubscribing,  understanding,  that  altho'  the  noble 
and  mighty  Lord  James  Earl  Both  well.  Lord  Hailes,  Crichton, 
and  Liddesdale,  Great  Admiral  of  Scotland,  and  Lieutenant  to 
our  Sovereign  Lady  over  all  the  Marches  thereof,  being  not  only 
bruited  and  calumniated  by  placards  privily  affixed  on  the  public 
places  of  the  Kirk  of  Edinburg,  and  othervvays  slandered  by- 
his  evil  willers  and  privy  Enemies,  as  Art  and  Part  of  the  hein- 
ous Murder  of  the  King,  the  Queen's  Majesty's  late  Husband,  but 
also  by  special  Letters  sent  to  her  Highness  by  the  Earl  of  Len- 
nox and  dilated  of  the  same  crime,  who  in  his  Letters  earnestly 
flesired  and  required  the  said  Earl  Bothwell  to  be  tried  of  the 
said  murder,  —  he,  by  condign  Inquest  and  Assize  of  certain  No- 
blemen his  Peers,  and  other  Barons  of  good  reputation,  is  found 


318 


APPENDIX. 


guiltless  and  innocent  of  the  odious  crime  objected  to  him,  and 
acquitted  thereof,  conform  to  the  Laws  of  this  Realm  ;  who  also, 
for  further  trial  of  his  part,  has  offered  himself  readie  to  defend 
and  maintain  his  innocence  against  all  that  will  impugn  the  same 
by  the  Law  of  Arms,  and  so  has  omitted  nothing  for  the  perfect 
trial  of  his  accusation,  that  any  Nobleman  of  honour,  or  by  the 
Laws  ought  to  underlie  and  accomplish.  And  We  considering 
the  Ancientness  and  Nobleness  of  his  House,  the  honourable  and 
good  service  done  by  his  predecessors,  and  specially  by  himself, 
to  our  Sovereign,  and  for  the  defence  of  this  her  Highness'  Realm 
against  the  enemies  thereof  and  the  Amity  and  Friendship  which 
80  long  has  persevered  betwixt  his  House  and  every  one  of  us, 
and  others  our  Predecessors  in  particular :  and  therewithal  see- 
ing how  all  Noblemen,  being  in  reputation,  honour,  and  credit 
with  their  Sovereign,  are  commonly  subject  to  sustain  as  well  the 
vain  bruits  of  the  inconstant  common  people,  as  the  accusations 
and  calumnies  of  their  adversaries,  envious  of  our  Place  and  Vo- 
cation, which  we  of  our  duty  and  friendship  are  astricted  and 
debt-bound  to  repress  and  withstand;  THEREFORE  oblige 
us,  and  each  one  of  us,  upon  our  Faith  and  Honours,  and  Truth 
in  our  bodies,  as  we  are  Noblemen,  and  will  answer  to  God,  that 
in  case  hereafter  any  manner  of  person  or  persons,  in  whatsoever 
manner,  shall  happen  to  insist  further  to  the  slander  and  calum- 
niation of  the  said  Earl  of  Bothwell,  as  participant.  Art  or  Part, 
of  the  said  heinous  murder,  whereof  ordinary  Justice  has  ac- 
quitted him,  and  for  which  he  has  offered  to  do  his  Devoir  by  the 
Law  of  Arms  in  manner  above  rehearsed ;  we,  and  every  one  of 
us,  by  ourselves,  our  kin,  friends,  assisters,  partakers,  and  all  that 
will  do  for  us,  shall  take  true,  honest,  plain,  and  upright  Part  with 
him,  to  the  Defence  and  Maintenance  of  his  Quarrell,  with  our 
bodies,  heritage,  and  goods,  against  his  private  or  public  calum- 
niators, byepast  or  to  come,  or  any  others  presuming  anything 
in  Word  or  Deed  to  his  Reproach,  Dishonour,  or  Infamy.  More- 
over, weighing  and  considering  the  time  present,  and  how  our 
Sovereign  the  Queen's  Majesty  is  now  destitute  of  a  Husband, 
in  the  which  solitary  state  the  Coramonweale  of  this  Realme  may 
not  permit  her  Highnesse  to  continue  and  endure,  but  at  some 
time  her  Highness  in  appearance  may  be  inclined  to  yield  into  a 
Marriage ;  and  therefore,  in  case  the  former  affectionate  and 
hearty  service  of  the  said  Earl  done  to  her  Majesty  from  time  to 


APPENDIX. 


319 


time,  and  his  other  good  Qualities  and  Behaviour,  may  move  her 
Majesty  so  far  to  humble  herself,  as,  preferring  one  of  her  native 
born  subjects  unto  all  foreign  Princes,  to  take  to  Husband  the 
said  Earl,  We  and  every  one  of  us  undersubscribing,  upon  our 
Honours  and  Fidelity,  oblige  us  and  promise,  not  only  to  further, 
advance,  and  set  forward  the  Marriage  to  be  solemnized  and 
completed  betwixt  her  Highness  and  the  said  Noble  Lord,  with 
our  Votes,  Counsel,  Fortification,  and  Assistance  in  Word  and 
Deed,  at  such  time  as  it  shall  please  her  Majesty  to  think  it  con- 
venient, and  how  soon  the  Laws  shall  leave  it  to  be  done  ;  but 
in  case  any  should  presume  directly  or  indirectly,  openly,  or  un- 
der whatsoever  Colour  or  Pretence,  to  hinder,  hold  back,  or  dis- 
turb the  said  Marriage,  we  shall,  in  that  behalf,  esteem,  hold,  and 
repute  the  Hinderers,  Adversaries,  or  Disturbers  thereof,  as  our 
common  Enemies  and  evil  Willers ;  and  notwithstanding  the 
same,  take  part  and  fortify  the  said  Earl  to  the  said  Marriage,  so 
far  as  it  may  please  our  Sovereign  Lady  to  allow ;  and  therein 
shall  spend  and  bestow  our  Lives  and  Goods  against  all  that  live 
or  die  may,  as  we  shall  answer  to  God,  and  upon  our  own  Fidel- 
ities and  Conscience  ;  and  in  case  we  do  to  the  contrary,  never 
to  have  Reputation  or  Credit  in  no  Time  hereafter,  but  to  be  ac- 
counted unworthy  and  faithless  Traitors. 

"  In  Witness  whereof,  we  have  subscribed  these  presents,  as  fol- 
lows, at  Edinburg,  the  19th  day  of  April,  the  year  of  God 
1^67  years." 

No.  VHL 

EXTRACTS  FROM  A  REMARKABLE  ARTICLE  BY  DR.  JOHNSON.^ 

"  It  has  now  been  fashionable  for  near  half  a  century  to  defame 
and  vilify  the  House  of  Stuart,  and  to  exalt  and  magnify  the 
reign  of  Elizabeth.  The  Stuarts  have  found  few  apologists,  for 
the  dead  cannot  pay  for  praise." 

After  recapitulating  the  dates  involved,  he  makes  these  points 
among  others.    That,  — 

First,  "  These  letters  thus  timorously  and  suspiciously  commu- 
nicated were  all  the  evidence  against  Mary ;  for  the  servants  of 
Bothwell,  executed  for  the  murder  of  the  King,  acquitted  the 
Queen  at  the  hour  of  death. 

1  Gentleman's  Magazine  for  October,  1760. 


320 


APPENDIX. 


Second,  "  The  letters  were  alleged  as  the  reason  for  the  Queen's 
imprisonment,  altho'  she  was  imprisoned  on  the  16th,  and  the 
letters  are  not  pretended  to  have  been  intercepted  before  the 
20th. 

Third,  "The  authority  of  these  letters  should  have  been  put 
out  of  doubt,  yet  there  is  no  witness  but  Morton  and  Crawford. 
Dalgleish  was  hanged,  without  interrogatory  as  to  the  letters, 
and  Paris,  altho'  then  in  prison,  was  not  yet  tried ;  nor  was  his 
confession  produced  until  after  his  death." 

He  then  disposes  of  Robertson's  and  Hume's  objections. 

As  further  reasons  for  doubting  the  genuineness  of  the  casket- 
letters  he  says : — 

"The  difference  between  written  and  subscribed,  and  wholly 
written  gives  Tytler  just  reason  to  suspect ;  first,  a  forgery,  and 
then  a  variation  of  the  forgery.  It  is,  indeed ,  very  remarkable, 
that  the  Jirst  account  asserts  more  than  the  second,  though  the 
second  contains  all  the  truth ;  for  the  letters,  whether  written  by 
the  Queen  or  not,  were  not  subscribed  by  her ;  and  had  the 
second  account  differed  from  the  Jirst  only  by  something  added, 
the  first  might  have  contained  truth,  though  not  all  the  truth ; 
but,  as  the  second  corrects  the  first  by  elimination,  the  first  cannot 
be  free  from  fraud."  And  concludes,  "  That  the  letters  were 
forged  is  now  made  so  probable  that  perhaps  they  will  never 
more  be  cited  as  testimonies." 

No.  IX. 

Buchanan's  "  detection." 

Buchanan  was  an  apostate  monk,  saved  from  the  gallows  by 
Mary,  and  loaded  with  her  favors.  An  eye-witness  of  her  dig- 
nity, her  goodness,  and  her  purity,  he  afterward  described  her  as 
the  vilest  of  wonlen.  He  sold  his  pen,  and  has  been  properly 
described  as  "unrivaled  in  baseness,  peerless  in  falsehood,  su- 
preme in  ingratitude."  His  "  Detection  "  was  published  (1570)  in 
Latin,  and  copies  were  immediately  sent  by  Cecil  to  Elizabeth's 
Ambassador  in  Paris  with  instructions  to  circulate  them ;  "/or 
they  ivill  come  to  good  effect  to  disgrace  her,  lohich  must  be  done 
before  other  purposes  can  be  obtained."  This  shameful  work  has 
been  the  inspiration  of  most  of  the  portraits  drawn  of  Mary.  De 
Thou  in  France,  Jebb,  and  many  others  in  England,  have  all 


APPENDIX. 


321 


followed  him.  Spotiswoode  is  little  more  than  a  digest  of  Knox 
and  Buchanan  clad  in  decent  language.  Holinshed,  too,  was 
deceived  by  Buchanan  ;  but  it  is  doubtful  if  he  dared  write 
otherwise  than  he  did,  between  the  terrors  of  Cecil's  spies  and 
Elizabeth's  mace.  De  Thou  is  an  authority  generally  looked 
up  to  with  great  respect,  but  when  he  is  quoted  in  any  matter 
concerning  Mary  Stuart,  it  is  substantially  Buchanan  who  is 
really  cited,  for  De  Thou  on  all  points  of  Scottish  history  depends 
on  and  copies  Buchanan.  He  himself  states  this  fact  in  his  cor- 
respondence with  Camden  and  Casaubon.  (Ed.  of  1734.)  MM. 
Mignet  and  Froude  ought  to  be  aware  of  this  fact,  yet  they  cite 
De  Thou  as  though  he  were  an  original  authority.  Buchanan 
accompanied  Mary  to  Scotland,  and  a  letter  of  Randolph  to 
Cecil  (1562)  speaks  of  him  as  reading  Livy  with  the  Queen 
every  day  at  Holyrood.  The  list  of  Mary's  books  at  that  time 
shows  the  extent  of  her  accomplishments.  No  mere  tyro  in 
Latin  ever  found  much  pleasure  in  Livy.  Buchanan  was  one  of 
the  first  Latin  scholars  of  the  age,  although  Hallam  ("  Tit.  of 
Europe")  thinks  him  overrated.  Li  15G4  Mary  presented  Bu- 
chanan with  a  pension  of  £500  Scots,  and  made  him  lay  abbot 
of  Crossraguel  Abbey,  an  appointment  which  gave  him  inde- 
pendence. In  1565-6  he  brought  out  his  first  complete  edition 
of  his  admirable  paraphrase  of  the  Psalms,  dedicating  it  to  the 
Queen,  in  the  celebrated  epigram  which  excels  any  literary  com- 
pliment ever  paid  to  a  European  sovereign.  Her  merit,  he  said, 
surpassed  her  good  fortune ;  her  virtue,  her  years  ;  her  courage, 
her  sex ;  and  the  nobleness  of  her  qualities,  her  nobility  of  race. 
The  Latin  is  admirable  :  — 

"Quae  sortem  antevenis  meritis,  virtutibus  annos, 
Sexum  animis,  morum  nobilitate  genus." 

The  most  assiduous  of  her  flatterers  while  in  power,  he  pursued 
her  in  adversity  with  a  malice  but  little  short  of  diabolical.  We 
find  him  in  Murray's  pay  and  attendance  in  producing  the  silver- 
casket  letters  at  York,  and  at  Westminster. 

In  speaking  of  the  loose  and  violent  accusations  of  criminal 
love  between  Mary  and  Botliwell,  uttered  by  Buchanan  and 
Knox,  the  Presbyterian  historian,  Dr.  Robertson,  says  that  "  such 
delicate  transitions  of  passion  can  be  discerned  only  by  those 
who  are  admitted  near  the  persons  of  the  parties.  Neither  Knox 
21 


322 


APPENDIX. 


nor  Buchanan  enjoyed  these  advantages.  Their  humble  station 
allowed  them  only  a  distant  access  to  the  Queen  and  her  favor- 
ite. And  the  ardor  of  their  zeal,  as  well  as  the  violence  of  their 
prejudices,  rendered  their  opinions  rash,  precipitate,  and  inaccu- 
rate." The  "  distant  access "  is  too  mild  a  statement.  Knox 
fled  from  Edinburgh  when  Riccio  was  murdered,  and  did  not 
return  until  Mary  was  a  prisoner  at  Lochleven,  and  during  all 
this  period  Buchanan  no  longer  went  to  Holyrood. 

The  Episcopal  Bishop  Keith  denounces  Buchanan  as  "  a  vile 
and  shameless  traducer,"  and  says  his  "  Detection  "  "  sufficiently 
detects  itself  to  be  one  continued  piece  of  satirical  romance." 
"And  in  general,"  he  adds  (vol.  ii.  p.  108),  "by  the  corrections 
which  I  havamade  from  original  records,  of  almost  all  the  facts 
hitherto  touched  by  Mr.  Buchanan  and  Mr.  Knox,  which  have  any 
relation  to  their  sovereign  the  Queen,  and  how  grossly,  if  not 
maliciously,  they  have  departed  from  the  truth,  and  how  little 
ground  posterity  has  to  rely  upon  their  representations  in  other 
facts,  when  supported  by  no  better  authority  than  theirs."  Even 
Mr.  Burton  cannot  conceal  the  fact  that  he  beheves  Buchanan  to 
be  an  unmitigated  liar,  who  writes  calumnies  with  high  art  and 
superior  finish  of  style.  Of  course,  this  is  stated  euphuistically, 
thus :  "  But  while  those  who  have  gone  into  the  intricacies  of 
the  story  cannot  accept  the  conclusions  of  the  '  Detection,'  they 
cannot  read  it  without  acknowledging  that  it  is  a  great  work  of 
rhetorical  art."  (Vol.  iv.  p.  449.)  Further,  he  says  :  "Everything 
with  him  (Buchanan)  is  utterly  and  palpably  vile  and  degrading, 
without  any  redeeming  or  mitigating  elements.  A  great  master 
of  rhetoric,  he  sets  forth  Mary's  guilt  in  a  language  in  which  in- 
vective is  perhaps  more  at  home  than  in  any  other." 

We  have  seen  Cecil's  appreciation  of  the  "  Detection  "  in  his  in- 
structions for  its  circulation,  and  the  raison  d'etre  of  the  book  is 
best  explained  by  that  statesman's  certificate  i  accompanying  the 
original  edition.  The  certificate  was  intended  to  accredit  the 
book,  but  as  it  let  out  the  important  fact  that  it  was,  in  point  of 
fact,  dictated  by  the  Scotch  lords  (Murray  &  Co.)  who  were 
Mary's  accusers  and  persecutors,  it  was  afterwards  suppressed. 

Such  is  the  origin  of  the  Detection,"  and  it  may  be  added  that 
it  is  so  filthy  that  but  few  persons  can  read  it  through,  and  that 
its  most  serious  charges  are  totally  unsupported  by  a  tittle  of 
1  Ante,  p.  221. 


APPENDIX. 


323 


contemporary  testimony.  Buchanan  was  copied  by  Knox  in 
Scotland,  and  by  De  Thou  in  France.  He  forms  the  inspiration 
of  Messrs.  Fronde  and  Mignet.  The  hitter  never  mentions  him, 
the  former  quotes  him  at  every  page,  but  without  naming  him. 
llie  venerable  Camden  says  that  Buchanan  in  his  last  illness 
wished  "  he  might  live  so  long  till,  by  recalling  the  truth,  he 
might  even  with  his  blood  wipe  away  those  aspersions  which  he 
had  by  his  bad  tongue  unjustly  cast  upon  Mary." 

No.  X. 

MARY  Stuart's  prisons  in  England. 

Carlisle,  from  May  19,  1568  — two  months. 
Bolton,  from  July  16,  1568  —  six  months. 
Tutbury,  from  February  9,  1569  — two  months. 
Wingfield,  from  April  7,  1569  —  seven  months. 
Coventry,  from  November  14,  1569  —  one  month. 
Tutbury,  from  January  2,  1570  —  four  months. 
Chats  worth,  from  May  17,  1570  —  five  months. 
Shefiield,  from  November  28,  1570  —  thirteen  years  and  nine 
months. 

Buxton  Baths,  a  visit  for  health. 
Wingfield,  from  September  3,  1584  — three  months. 
Tutbury,  from  January  13,  1585  —  eleven  months. 
Chartley,  from  December  24,  1585  —  one  month. 
Fotheringay,  from  September  25,  1586  —  nine  months. 
The  scafibld,  February,  1587. 

No.  XL 

EXTRACT  FROM  PREFACE  TO  CALENDAR  OF  THE  STATE  PA- 
PERS (1509-1603)  RELATING  TO  SCOTLAND,  PRESERVED  IN 
THE  STATE  PAPER  DEPARTMENT  OF  HER  MAJESTY'S  PUBLIC 
RECORD  OFFICE.  SCOTTISH  SERIES,  VOL.  I.  PREFACE  BY 
MARKHAM  JOHN  THARPE,  ESQ.     Pp.  XXV,  XXvi. 

"  The  second  series  of  papers  relates  to  Mary  Queen  of  Scots 
after  her  flight  from  Scotland,  and  consists  of  the  correspondence 
which  passed  between  Queen  Mary  and  Queen  Elizabeth,  and 
their  respective  ministers  ;  the  reports  and  letters  of  the  nobles 


324 


APPENDIX. 


and  others  who  were  successively  appointed  to  take  charge  of 
the  captive  Queen  ;  the  correspondence  of  her  friends  and  ser- 
vants ;  some  of  the  evidence  supposed  to  have  been  produced 
against  the  Queen  at  York  and  elsewhere ;  the  alleged  love-let- 
ters to  the  Earl  of  Bothwell ;  and  a  large  mass  of  papers  which 
it  is  stated  were  seized  in  the  Queen's  apartments  at  Chartley 
Castle  in  1586,  upon  the  discovery  of  Babington's  conspiracy 
against  Queen  Elizabeth.  These  papers  consist  chiefly  of  letters 
in  cipher  with  contemporary  deciphers,  and  it  is  stated  that  they 
were  written  by  Queen  Mary  to  foreign  princes  and  divers  eccle- 
siastics and  others,  her  agents  abroad,  for  the  reestablishment  of 
the  Romish  religion  in  England,  and  the  subversion  of  the  throne 
of  Queen  Elizabeth. 

"  The  reader's  attention  is  requested  not  only  to  the'  contents 
of  these  records,  but  also  to  the  circumstances  under  which  they 
are  preserved  to  us.  The  evidence  they  contain  is  all-important  5 
there  is  abundance  of  insinuation,  there  is  much  assertion  of 
guilt,  but  proof  nowhere  as  far  as  the  compiler  has  been  able  to 
seek  it.  lie  wishes  therefore  to  point  out  especially,  first,  that 
the  monstrous  letters  to  Bothwell  are  not  in  Queen  Mary's  hand- 
writing ;  secondly,  that'  there  is  not  in  the  State  Papers  here 
described,  any  one  which  shows  participation  on  the  Queen's  part 
in  the  murder  of  Darnley  ;  and,  lastly,  that  all  the  letters  in 
cipher,  above  alluded  to,  profess  only  to  be  copies,  copies  in 
cipher,  and  copies  deciphered.  They  are  nearly  all  in  the  hand- 
writing of  one  Mr.  Thomas  Phelippes,  a  person  of  much  ingenuity 
and  ability  in  the  use  of  his  pen,  who  was  employed  by  the  Eng- 
lish ministers  to  decipher  letters.  Occasionally  he  counterfeited 
them ;  and  his  conduct  was  subsequently  investigated  and  brought 
to  light  in  the  reign  of  King  James.  The  attention  of  many 
readers  will  be  arrested  by  those  passages  wherein  Mr.  Phelippes 
and  others  artfully  connect  Queen  Mary's  name  with  BabiuLi- 
ton's;  and  some  may  wonder,  perhaps,  what  those  plans  of  Mi-. 
Phelippes  could  have  been  which  the  captive  Queen's  stern 
keeper,  Sir  Amias  Powlet  dared  not  put  in  execution." 

No.  XII. 

There  exist  to  this  day  two  mute  witnesses  on  this  point. 
The  first  is  a  picture  of  the  severed  head  of  Mary  Stuart  in  the 


APPENDIX. 


325 


Museum  of  United  Service  Club.  It  was  evidently  taken  before 
the  features  wei-e  composed  after  the  death  agony,  for  the  broad 
eyelids  are  still  open. 

The  second  is  also  a  picture  of  the  severed  head  taken  a  day 
later.  It  is  on  a  dish  which  is  placed  on  a  table  covered  with 
scarlet  velvet.  A  roll  of  parchment  hanging  from  the  table  bears 
the  inscription,  — 

Maria  Scotice  Regina 
9.  Feby.  1587 

—  with  the  signature  of  the  painter,  Amyas  Cawood.  This  pic- 
ture was  presented  to  Sir  Walter  Scott  by  a  Russian  gentle- 
man. In  describing  "  The  Home  of  Sir  Walter  Scott,"  Haw- 
thorne, in  his  "  English  Note-book,"  thus  speaks  of  it  :  — 

"  I  am  not  quite  sure  whether  I  saw  all  these  pictures  in  the 
drawing-room,  or  some  of  them  in  the  dining-room  ;  but  the  one 
that  struck  me  most  —  and  very  much  indeed  —  was  the  head  of 
Mary  Queen  of  Scots,  literally  the  head  cut  off,  and  lying  on  a 
dish.  It  is  said  to  have  been  painted  by  an  Italian  or  French 
artist  two  days  after  her  death.  The  hair  curls  or  flows  all  about 
it ;  the  face  is  of  a  death-like  hue,  but  has  an  expression  of  quiet, 
after  much  pain  and  trouble  —  very  beautiful,  very  sweet  and 
sad ;  and  it  affected  me  strongly  with  the  horror  and  strange- 
ness of  such  a  head  being  severed  from  its  body.  Methinks  I 
should  not  like  to  have  it  always  in  the  room  with  me." 

No.  XIII. 

COPY  OP  A    RELATION  OF   THE   EARL    OF    BOTHWELL'S  DEC- 
LARATION AT  HIS  DEATH,  BY  ONE  THAT  WAS  PRESENT. 

"  The  Earl  of  Both  well  being  sick  unto  death  in  the  Castle  of 
Malmay  (Malmoe  ?)  made  solemn  faith  of  what  here  followeth, 
viz :  The  Bishop  of  Schonen,  together  with  four  great  Lords, 
viz,  Berin  Gowes,  Governor  of  the  Castle  of  Malmay,  Otto  Braw 
of  the  Castle  of  Ottenbrucht,  Paris  Braw  of  the  Castle  of  Vescat, 
and  Mons.  Gallensterne  of  the  Castle  of  Falkenstrie,  and  together 
likewise  with  the  four  Bailiffs  of  the  town,  prayed  the  Earle  to 
declare  freely  and  truly  what  he  knew  of  the  death  of  the  late 
King  Henry  (Darnley)  and  of  the  authors  thereof  according  as 
he  should  answer  before  God  at  the  Day  of  Judgment  where  all 
things,  how  secret  soever  they  may  be  here,  ^hall  be  laid  open. 


326 


APPENDIX. 


"  Then  the  said  Earl,  declaring  that  through  his  present  great 
■weakness  he  was  not  able  to  discourse  all  the  several  steps  of 
these  things,  testified  that  the  Queen  was  innocent  of  that  death, 
and  that  only  he  himself,  his  friends,  and  some  of  the  nobility 
were  the  authors  of  it. 

"  And  being  thereto  pressed  by  the  Lords  to  name  some  of  the 
persons  that  were  guilty,  he  named  my  Lord  James,  Earl  of  Mur- 
ray, my  Lord  Robert,  Abbot  of  Holyrood,  both  of  them  bastard 
brothers  of  the  Queen,  the  Earls  of  Crawford,  Argyll,  Glencau-n, 
Boyd,  the  Lprds  of  Lethington,  Buccleugh  and  Grange." 

See  the  entire  paper  in  Keith,  vol.  iii.  p.  305  ;  and  for  a  thor- 
ough discussion  of  its  authenticity  and  value,  see  Notes  to 
Aytoun's  «  Bothwell,"  p.  259. 

No.  XIY. 

In  presenting  this  letter  Lodge  says  ("Illustrations  of  British 
History,"  vol.  ii.  pp.  26  7-277)  :  "  It  well  deserves  the  attention  of 
those  who  would  obtain  a  clear  knowledge  of  Mary's  true  char- 
acter, and  of  l^Uizabeth's  detestable  conduct  towards  her  in  the 
last  years  of  her  imprisonment." 

The  letter  has  been  frequently  translated  into  English,  but  by 
no  one  so  admirably  as  by  the  late  Donald  MacLeod  (author  of 
"Bloodstone,"  "  Life  of  Sir  Walter  Scott  "),  whose  version,  from 
his  "  Life  of  Mary  Queen  of  Scots,"  is  here  given. 

The  letter  was  written  from  her  prison  at  Sheffield,  November 
8,  1582,  in  the  fourteenth  year  of  her  captivity.  For  the  best  of 
reasons  Elizabeth  did  not  answer  it.  She  could  not.  She  dared 
not :  — 

"  Madame,  —  In  consequence  of  what  I  have  learned  about 
the  late  conspiracies  against  my  poor  son,  in  Scotland,  and  having 
every  occasion,  from  my  own  experience,  to  fear  the  consequences, 
I  must  employ  what  life  and  strength  I  have  remaining,  to  empty 
my  heart  to  you  ere  I  die,  of  my  righteous  and  melancholy  com- 
plaints. I  desire  that  this  letter  may  serve  you  so  long  as  you 
live  after  me,  for  a  perpetual  testimony  engraven  on  your  con- 
science ;  for  my  acquittal  in  the  eyes  of  posterity,  and  for  the 
shame  and  confusion  of  all  who,  by  your  own  avowal,  have  so 
cruelly  and  unworthily  treated  me  here,  and  brought  me  to  the 
extremity  in  which  I  now  am.    But  inasmuch  as  their  designs, 


APPENDIX. 


327 


practices,  actions,  and  procedures,  detestable  as  they  have  been, 
have  always  prevailed  with  you,  against  ray  most  just  remon- 
strances and  my  sincere  conduct,  and  since  tire  power  which  you 
hold  has  always  made  you  seem  right  in  the  sight  of  men,  1  now 
have  recourse  to  the  living  God,  who  has  established  us  both, 
under  Himself,  for  the  government  of  his  people. 

"  I  call  upon  Him,  in  this  extreme  hour  of  my  urgent  affliction, 
to  render  to  you  and  to  me,  that  part  of  merit  or  of  demerit,  that 
each  owes  to  the  other,  even  as  He  will  render  it  on  his  final 
judgment.  And  remember,  Madame,  that  from  Him  we  can  dis- 
guise nothing,  by  the  coloring  and  the  policy  of  this  world,  as  my 
enemies,  under  you,  have  temporarily  disguised  from  men,  and 
perhaps  from  you,  their  subtle  and  malicious  inventions  and  their 
godless  dexterities.  In  his  name,  therefore,  and  before  Him  as 
judge  between  you  and  me,  I  will  maintain :  first,  That  by  the 
agents,  spies,  and  secret  messengers,  sent  in  your  name  to  Scot- 
land while  I  was  still  there,  my  subjects  have  been  corrupted, 
tampered  with,  and  fexcited  to  rebel  against  me,  to  make  attempts 
against  my  own  person,  and  in  a  word,  to  say,  do,  undertake,  and 
execute  whatever,  during  my  troubles,  has  occurred  in  that  coun- 
try. Of  this  I  Avill  now  present  no  other  verification  than  the 
confession  of  one  who  has  since  been  one  of  the  most  advanced,! 
and  the  testimony  of  those  confronted  with  him  ;  of  one  advanced 
for  the  good  service  he  has  done ;  and  who,  had  I  then  done  him 
justice,  would  not  now,  by  favor  of  his  ancient  acquaintance,  have 
renewed  the  same  practices  against  my  son.  Neither  would  he 
have  furnished  to  my  treacherous  and  rebel  subjects  who  sought 
refuge  with  you,  the  aid  and  support  that  they  have  received 
since  my  detention  here  ;  a  support  without  which  those  traitors 
would  not,  I  think,  have  prevailed  then ;  nor  have  subsisted 
since  then  so  long  as  they  have  done. 

"  When  in  my  prison  of  Lochleven,  the  late  Throckmorton 
counseled  me,  in  your  name^  to  sign  the  act  of  abdication,  which  he 
said  would  be  presented  to  me,  and  which  he  assured  was  value- 
less ;  and  valueless  it  has  ever  been  esteemed  in  every  portion  of 
Christendom,  except  here,  where  even  open  force  has  been  lent 
to  support  its  authors.  On  your  conscience,  Madame,  would  you 
recognize  such  liberty  and  power  in  your  subjects?  Yet  my 
authority  was  given  by  my  subjects  to  my  son  while  utterly  in-' 
1  Randolph. 


828 


APPENDIX. 


capable  of  exercising  it,  and  since  he  has  arrived  at  a  proper  age 
to  act  for  himself,  and,  when  I  would  have  legitimately  assured 
him  in  it,  it  is  suddenly  torn  from  him,  made  over  to  two  or  three 
traitors,^  who,  having  already  robbed  him  of  the  reality,  will  soon 
rob  him  also,  as  they  did'  me,  of  the  name  and  title,  should  he 
contradict  them  at  all,  and  perhaps  of  his  life  also  if  God  pro- 
vides not  for  his  preservation. 

"  So  soon  as  I  escaped  from  Lochleven,  and  was  about  to  give 
battle  to  my  rebellious  lords,  I  sent  you  back,  by  a  gentleman,  a 
diamond  ring  which  I  had  previously  received  from  you  in  token 
and  assurance  that  you  would  aid  me  against  those  very  rebels, 
and  even,  should  I  retire  towards  you,  that  you  would  come  in 
person  to  the  froniier  to  assist  me ;  and  this  was  confirmed  to  me 
by  various  other  messages.  This  promise,  coming  reiterated 
from  your  own  mouth  (or  if  not  your  ministers  have  frequently 
deceived  me),  caused  me  to  put  so  great  confidence  in  you,  that 
when  my  field  was  lost,  I  came  at  once  to  throw  myself  into  your 
arms,  if  I  might  have  that  privilege  as  well  as  the  rebels.  But 
on  my  road  to  find  you,  behold  me  arrested  on  my  way,  envi- 
roned with  guards,  confined  in  fortresses,  and  finally  reduced, 
shamelessly,  into  the  captivity  which  is  now  killing  me ;  me  who 
have  already  suffered  a  thousand  mortal  pangs. 

"  I  know  you  will  allege  what  passed  between  the  late  Duke  of 
Norfolk  and  me ;  but  I  maintain  that  there  was  nothing  in  our 
dealings  to  your  prejudice  nor  against  the  public  good  of  this 
realm ;  and  that  the  treaty  was  formed  by  the  advice  and  still 
existing  signatures  of  the  first  men  of  your  then  council,  with  an 
assurance  that  you  too  would  favor  it.  How  would  such  person- 
ages undertake  to  persuade  you  to  approve  of  an  act  which  would 
destroy  your  life,  honor,  and  crown,  as  you  declare  to  all  ambas- 
sadors and  others  who  speak  to  you  of  me  ? 

"  Meanwhile,  my  rebels,  perceiving  that  their  precipitate  course 
was  carrying  them  further  than  they  anticipated,  and  the  truth 
having  appeared  that  what  they  uttered  against  me  were  slanders, 
before  the  conference  to  tvhich  I  voluntarily  submitted  in  this  coun- 
try,^ in  order  to  clear  myself  publicly  in  open  assembly  of  your 

1  Lennox,  Mar,  Morton,  etc. 

2  Ella  verite  eslant  apparue  des  impostures  qu'on  semoit  de  moy,  par  la 
Conference  a  Inquelleje  me  souhmis  voluntairemeni  en  ce  pays.'"  It  is  this 
sentence  which  Labanoff  says  has  been  generally  ill  rendered,  v.  322. 


APPENDIX. 


329 


deputies  and  mine,  many  among  them  returned  to  their  loyalty ; 
and  for  this  they  were  pursued  by  your  own  forces,  besieged  in 
Edinburgh  Castle  ;  one  of  the  first  among  them  poisoned  ;  i  and 
another,  the  least  blamable  among  them,  most  cruelly  hanged,^ 
although,  at  your  request,  I  had  twice  caused  them  to  lay  down 
their  arms,  under  assurance  of  agreement,  which  perhaps  my 
enemies  never  even  intended. 

"  For  a  long  time  I  was  willing  to  try  whether  patience  would 
mitigate  the  rigorous  treatment  to  which  I  have  been  subjected, 
especially  during  these  ten  years  past ;  and  I  accommodated  my- 
self exactly  to  the  order  prescribed,  during  my  captivity  in  this 
house,  as  well  with  regard  to  the  number  and  quality  of  my  ser- 
vitors, as  to  the  diet  and  exercise  necessary  for  my  health.  I 
have  lived  hitherto  as  quietly  and  peaceably  as  any  one  of  far 
lower  rank  and  f\ir  more  obliged  to  you  than  ever  I  have  been ; 
even  depriving  myself,  to  remove  all  shadow  of  suspicion  or  dis- 
trust on  your  part,  of  the  right  to  demand  intelligence  from  my 
son  and  my  country.  There  was  neither  right  nor  reason  in 
refusing  me  this  intelligence,  particularly  about  my  son,  but  in- 
stead of  that,  they  labored  to  influence  him  against  me,  so  to  en- 
feeble both  by  dissension.  You  will  say  I  was  permitted  to  send 
to  him  three  years  ago.  His  captivity  in  Sterling,  under  the 
tjTanny  of  Morton,  was  the  cause  of  your  permission,  as  the  lib- 
erty he  has  since  enjoyed  is  the  cause  of  your  refusing  a  similar 
permission  all  this  past  year. 

"  I  have  at  various  times  made  overtures  for  the  establishment 
of  a  sound  amity  between  us,  and  a  sure  understanding  between 
our  two  kingdoms  for  the  future.  Commissioners  were  sent  to 
me  for  that  purpose  at  Chatsworth  about  eleven  years  ago.  The 
ambassadors  of  France  and  my  own  treated  of  it  with  your  own 
self  And  I,  throughout  the  past  year,  made  every  possible  ad- 
vantageous proposition  to  Beale.3  And  what  is  the  result  ?  My 
good  intentions  are  mistaken  ;  the  sincerity  of  my  acts  neglected 
and  calumniated  ;  the  condition  of  my  affairs  made  worse  by 
delays,  surmises,  and  such  other  artifices,  and,  to  conclude,  worse 
and  worse  treatment  every  day,  no  matter  what  I  may  have  done 
to  deserve  the  contrary.    My  too  long,  useless,  and  ruinous  pa- 

1  Maitland  of  Lethington.  2  Sir  W.  Kirkaldy  of  Grange. 

8  Secretary  of  Elizabetli's  council,  sent  really  as  a  spy,  ostensibly  to  treat 
■with  Mary.    See  her  letter  to  him.   Labanoff,  v.  288. 


330 


APPENDIX. 


tience  has  brought  me  to  such  a  point,  that  my  enemies,  accus- 
tomed from  of  old  to  do  me  evil,  now  think  they  have  a  right  by 
prescription  to  use  me,  not  as  a  prisoner  (which  in  reason  I  can- 
not be)  but  as  a  slave,  whose  life  and  death  depends,  regardless 
of  God's  law  or  of  man's,  upon  their  tyranny  alone. 

"I  cannot,  Madame,  suffer  any  longer;  and  I  must,  even  in  dying, 
expose  the  authors  of  my  death  ;  or  living,  if  God  shall  grant  me 
still  some  respite,  endeavor,  under  your  protection,  to  destroy,  at 
any  price,  the  cruelties,  calumnies,  and  treacherous  designs  of  my 
enemies,  and  obtain  for  myself  a  little  repose  during  the  time  1 
may  have  to  live.  In  order,  therefore,  to  settle  the  pretended 
controversies  between  you  and  me,  enlighten  yourself,  if  you 
please,  upon  all  that  has  been  told  you  of  my  conduct  with  re- 
gard to  you.  Re-read  the  depositions  of  the  foreigners  taken  in 
Ireland. I  Let  those  of  the  executed  Jesuits  2  be  shown  to  you. 
Give  free  liberty  to  any  one  who  will  undertake  to  accuse  me, 
and  permit  me  also  to  make  my  defense.  If  there  be  found  any  ill 
in  me,  let  me  suffer  for  it.  I  can  do  so  more  patiently  when  I 
know  the  reason,  —  but  if  good  be  discovered,  mistake  me  no 
longer,  nor  suffer  me  any  more  to  be  so  ill  repaid.  You  have  so 
great  a  responsibility  to  God  and  man. 

"  The  vilest  criminals  in  your  prisons,  born  under  obedience  to 
you,  are  permitted  to  justify  themselves,  and  to  know  both  the 
accusers  and  their  charges.  Why  should  the  same  order  not  be 
taken  with  me,  a  sovereign  queen,  your  nearest  relative,  and  law- 
ful heiress.  I  fancy  that  this  last  quality  has  been  the  principal 
point  of  my  enemies,  and  the  cause  of  their  calumnies,  that  by 
causing  disunion  between  us,  they  might  slip  their  own  unjust 
pretensions  in  between  us.  But,  alas,  they  have  little  right  and 
less  need  to  torture  me  any  more  on  that  account,  for  I  protest, 
on  my  honor,  that  I  now  look  forward  to  no  other  kingdom  than 
that  of  my  God,  which  I  see  prepared  for  me,  as  my  best  recom- 
pense for  all  my  past  afflictions  and  adversities.  It  will  be  your 
duty  conscientiously  to  see  my  child  put  in  possession  of  his 
rights  after  my  death ;  and,  meantime,  to  restrain  the  constant 
intrigues  and  secret  means  taken  by  our  enemies  in  this  realm  to 
his  prejudice  and  to  advance  their  own  pretensions,  while,  at  the 

1  During  the  troubles  with  O'Neal  of  Desmond. 
Campian,  Sherwin,  and  Briant,  executed  for  high  treason  for  preaching 
the  Catholic  Faith.'  Lingard,  vi.  168. 


4 


APPENDIX. 


331 


same  time,  they  are  laboring  with  our  traitors  in  Scotland  to 
etfect  in  every  way  his  ruin.  I  ask  no  better  verification  of 
this  than  the  charge  given  to  your  last  envoys  and  deputies  to 
Scotland,  and  the  seditious  practices  of  those  envoys,  of  which  I 
am  willing  to  believe  you  ignorant,  but  to  which  they  were  dili- 
gently incited  by  the  earl,  my  good  neighbor,  at  York.^ 

"  Apropos,  Madame,  by  what  right  is  it  maintained  that  I,  his 
mother,  am  interdicted  not  only  from  aiding  my  child  in  so  ur- 
gent a  necessity  as  this,  but  even  from  having  information  about 
his  condition  ?  Who  can  bring  more  carefulness,  sense  of  duty, 
and  sincerity  to  this  than  I  ?    Whom  can  it  touch  more  nearly  ? 

"  At  least,  if,  in  sending  to  provide  for  his  safety,  as  the  Earl  of 
Shrewsbury  lately  told  me  you  have  done,  if  it  had  pleased  you 
to  receive  my  advice  therein,  how  much  greater  (it  seems  to  me) 
a  gratification  and  obligation  on  my  part  would  have  accrued  to 
you.  But  consider  what  you  left  me  to  think,  when  forget- 
ting so  suddenly  the  pretended  offenses  of  my  son,  and  when  I 
begged  that  we  might  send  together,  you  dispatched  a  messenger 
to  the  place  of  his  imprisonment,  not  only  without  informing  me, 
but  while  depriving  me  of  all  liberty  so  that  I  could  not  by  any 
means  get  news  of  it.  Ah,  had  they  who  moved  you  to  so  prompt 
a  visitation  to  my  son,  really  desired  his  preservation  and  the 
peace  of  the  country,  they  had  not  been  so  careful  to  conceal  it 
from  me,  as  a  thing  in  which  I  would  not  concur  with  you,  and 
thus  caused  you  to  lose  the  pleasure  which  you  would  have  re- 
ceived by  so  doing.  To  speak  more  plainly  to  you,  I  beseech  you 
to  make  no  more  use  of  such  means  and  persons,  for  although  I 
hold  Mr.  Carey  2  too  mindful  of  the  blood  from  which  he  is  sprung 
to  engage  his  honor  in  any  bad  action,  yet  he  had  an  assistant,  a 
sworn  partisan  of  the  Earl  of  Huntington,  by  whose  evil  offices 
so  base  an  action  only  could  succeed  by  a  like  effect.  It  will 
suffice  me  if  you  will  but  prevent  all  damage  to  my  son  from 
this  country,  which  is  all  that  I  have  ever  hitherto  asked  of  you, 
even  when  an  army  was  sent  to  the  frontier  to  hinder  justice 
from  being  done  to  the  detestable  Morton ;  and  also  that  none 
of  your  subjects  shall  meddle  directly  nor  indirectly  with  the 
affairs  of  Scotland,  unless  I,  who  have  a  right  to  such  knowledge, 

1  Earl  of  Huntington,  who  had  some  claim  to  the  English  throne. 

2  Son  of  Lord  Hunsdon,  who,  on  the  mother's  side,  was  cousin-german 
to  Elizabeth. 


332 


APPENDIX. 


know  of  it ;  or  without  the  assistance  of  some  one  on  the  part  of 
the  most  Christian  king,  my  good  brother,  who,  as  our  principal 
ally,  should  participate  in  all  this  matter,  however  little  credit 
he  may  have  Avith  the  traitors  who  now  detain  my  son. 

"  Meantime,  I  declare  to  you  frankly,  that  I  consider  this  last 
conspiracy  i  and  innovation  as  a  pure  treason  against  the  life  of  my 
son,  his  well-being,  and  that  of  the  kingdom ;  and  that  so  long  as 
he  remains  in  the  condition  in  which  I  hear  he  is,  I  shall  not  be- 
lieve that  any  word,  writing,  or  other  act  of  his  or  that  may  pass 
under  his  name,  proceeds  from  his  own  free  will,  but  solely  from 
the  conspirators  themselves,  who  risk  his  life  in  using  him  as  a 
mask. 

"  Now,  Madame,  with  all  this  liberty  of  speech,  which  I  foresee 
may  displease  you  in  some  points,  although  the  very  truth  itself, 
yet  I  am  persuaded  you  will  find  it  still  more  singular  that  I  now 
again  importune  you  with  a  request,  which  is  of  the  greatest  im- 
portance, yet  which  you  can  most  easily  grant  and  effect.  It  is 
that,  while  patiently  accommodating  myself  so  long  to  the  rigor- 
ous course  of  this  captivity ;  while  conducting  myself  in  all 
things  with  perfect  sincerity,  even  in  the  least  thing,  which  in- 
terest you  but  little,  I  have  yet  been  unable  to  assure  myself  of 
your  good  disposition,  nor  yet  give  you  proof  of  my  entire  affec- 
•  tion.  Therefore,  all  hope  of  anything  better  for  the  short  time 
I  have  to  live  being  lost,  I  implore  you,  yet,  in  honor  of  the  bitter 
Passion  of  our  Saviour  and  Redeemer  Jesus  Christ,  I  implore 
you,  let  me  leave  this  kingdom  for  some  place  of  rest ;  to  seek 
some  solace  for  this  poor  body  so  worn  with  perpetual  sorrows, 
and,  with  freedom  of  conscience,  to  prepare  my  soul  for  God  who 
is  calling  it  day  by  day  ! 

"  Believe  me,  Madame  (and  the  physicians  you  sent  me  last  sum- 
mer may  also  have  judged  of  it),  believe  me,  I  cannot  last  long, 
so  that  you  need  retain  no  jealousy  nor  distrust  of  me.  Yet, 
nevertheless,  exact  what  assurances  and  just  and  reasonable  con- 
ditions may  seem  good  in  your  sight.  The  greater  strength  is 
always  on  your  side  to  make  me  observe  them,  even  if  anything 
could  make  me  desire  to  violate  them.  You  have  had  sufficient 
experience  and  observation  enough  of  my  simple  promises,  and 
sometimes  to  my  prejudice,  as  I  showed  you  two  years  ago.  Re- 
member, if  you  please,  what  then  I  wrote  you,  that  '  by  no  means, 
i  The  Raid  of  liuthven,  or  Gowrie  Conspiracy. 


APPENDIX.  338 

save  gentleness,  could  you  bind  my  heart  to  yours,  even  though 
you  confined  my  poor  languishing  body  forever  within  stone 
walls,  for  that  those  of  ray  rank  and  nature  could  be  cajoled  nor 
forced  by  any  severity  whatever.' 

"  Your  prison,  without  any  right  or  just  cause,  has  already  de- 
stroyed my  body,  the  last  of  which  you  will  soon  see  if  my  cap- 
tivity endure  much  longer,  and  my  enemies  will  have  but  short 
time  to  satisfy  their  hatred  of  me.  There  remains  to  me  only  my 
soul,  which  is  beyond  your  power  to  make  captive.  Give  to  it  then 
the  liberty  to  seek  a  little  more  freely  its  salvation,  which  now  it 
longs  for  more  than  any  earthly  grandeur.  It  cannot,  I  think, 
satisfy  you,  or  be  to  your  honor  or  advantage,  if  my  enemies 
crush  my  life  beneath  their  feet,  until  I  lie  suffocated  before  you  ; 
while  on  the  other  hand,  if  you  release  me,  in  this  extremity 
(although  too  late),  you  will  greatly  oblige  me  and  mine,  espe- 
cially my  poor  child,  whom  by  so  doing  you  will  perhaps  bind  to 
yourself.  I  will  never  cease  to  importune  you  with  this  request 
until  it  be  granted,  and  therefore  I  beg  you  to  let  me  know  what 
you  intend,  having,  to  please  you,  waited  without  complaint  for 
these  two  years  past,  ere  I  renewed  the  entreaties  to  which  the 
wretched  condition  of  my  health  compels  me  more  than  you  can 
imagine.  Meantime,  provide,  if  you  please,  for  the  amelioration 
of  my  treatment  here,  since  it  is  beyond  my  power  to  suffer  longer ; 
and  do  not  leave  it  to  the  discretion  of  any  other  than  yourself, 
from  whom  alone,  as  I  wrote  you  lately,  I  wish  to  receive  all  the 
good  and  evil  which  henceforward  I  am  to  have  in  your  country. 
Do  me  the  favor  to  write  your  intentions  either  to  me  or  to  the 
French  Ambassador  for  me,  for  as  to  being  tied  up  to  what  the 
Earl  of  Shrewsbury  or  others  may  write  in  your  name,  I  have 
had  too  much  experience  to  put  my  trust  in  that,  their  lightest 
fancy  being  sufficient  warrant  for  the  change  of  everything  about 
me  daily. 

"  Besides,  when  I  lately  wrote  to  members  of  your  council,  you 
gave  me  to  understand  that  I  was  not  to  address  myself  to  them 
but  to  you  only,  and  it  is  not  reasonable  to  extend  their  authority 
only  to  do  me  evil,  as  in  this  last  restriction  of  theirs,  by  which, 
contrary  to  your  desire,  I  have  most  shamefully  been  dealt  with. 
This  gives  me  every  reason  to  believe  that  some  of  my  enemies 
in  your  counsel  have  expressly  hindered  other  members  thereof 
from  hearing  my  just  complaints,  and  who  either  knew  not  the 


334 


APPENDIX. 


persistent  endeavors  of  their  companions  against  my  life,  or  had 
they  known  them,  would  have  opposed  them  for  your  honor's 
sake  and  their  duty  to  you. 

"  Finally,  I  particularly  request  two  things  of  you :  first,  that, 
near  as  I  am  to  my  departure  from  this  world,  I  may  have  near 
me  some  honorable  churchman,  who  will  point  out  to  me  daily 
the  way  I  have  to  walk,  and  instruct  me  to  do  so  according  to 
the  rules  of  my  religion,  in  which  I  am  firmly  resolved  to  live 
and  die.  It  is  a  last  duty  which  should  not  be  refused  to  the 
most  wretched  and  miserable  being.  It  is  a  liberty  which  you 
extend  to  every  foreign  ambassador,  and  which  all  Catholic  kings 
extend  to  yours.  And  have  I  ever  forced  any  of  my  subjects  to 
do  anything  contrary  to  their  religion,  even  when  I  had  power 
and  authority  so  to  do  ?  And  now  in  this  extremity  you  cannot 
act  justly  and  deprive  me  of  this  freedom.  What  advantage 
could  you  gain  in  refusing  it?  I  trust  that  God  will  pardon  me, 
if  thus  oppressed  by  you,  I  render  Him  the  duty  I  owe  only,  as 
is  permitted  me,  in  my  heart.  But  you  will  set  a  very  bad  ex- 
ample to  the  other  princes  of  Christendom,  to  use  towards  their 
subjects  and  relatives  the  same  rigor  that  you  exhibit  toward 
me,  a  sovereign  queen,  and  your  nearest  kinswoman,  in  despite 
of  my  enemies,  as  I  am  and  will  be  so  long  as  I  live. 

"  I  will  not  importune  you  now  about  the  augmentation  of  my 
household,  of  which  I  shall  have  no  great  need  during  the  time  I 
have  to  live.  I  only  ask  of  you  two  chamher-women  to  take  care  of 
me  in  my  illness ;  protesting  before  God  that  they  would  be  ex- 
tremely necessary  were  I  even  a  poor  creature  of  the  simple 
people.  Grant  them  to  me  for  the  honor  of  God,  and  show  that 
my  enemies  have  not  credit  enough  with  you  to  exercise  their 
vengeance  and  cruelty  in  a  matter  of  so  little  consequence,  in  so 
simple  an  office  of  humanity.  , 

"  I  come  now  to  the  accusation  of  the  said  Shrewsbury  (if  accuse 
me  he  can),  namely,  that  against  my  promise  given  to  Beale  and 
without  your  knowledge,  I  have  negotiated  with  my  son  about 
yielding  him  the  title  to  the  crown  of  Scotland,  after  having  prom- 
ised to  do  nothing  without  your  advice,  and  by  one  of  my  sub- 
jects, who,  in  their  common  voyage  should  be  directed  by  one  of 
yours.  These  I  believe  are  the  precise  terms  of  the  said  earl.  I 
"would  tell  you,  Madame,  that  Beale  never  received  any  simple  and 
absolute  promise  from  me  ;  but  several  conditional  propositions, 


APPENDIX. 


835 


by  which  I  could  not  in  any  way  be  bound  save  in  the  fulfillment 
of  the  conditions  upon  which  they  were  based  by  me;  with  which 
conditions  he  was  so  little  satisfied,  that  I  have  never  even  had 
any  reply  to  them,  nor  in  your  heart  even  heard  them  so  much 
as  mentioned  since ;  and,  with  regard  to  that,  I  remember  per- 
fectly well,  that  the  Earl  of  Shrewsbury,  last  Easter,  desiring  to 
draw  from  me  some  new  confirmation  of  what  I  had  said  to  Beale, 
I  explained  clearly  to  him,  that  it  was  only  in  case  that  the  said 
conditions  were  accorded  to  me,  that  my  words  could  take  effect. 
Both  are  still  living  to  testify  to  this  before  you  if  they  will  to 
speak  the  truth.  Since  that,  seeing  that  no  answer  was  made  to 
me,  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  by  delays  and  negligence,  my  ene- 
mies continued  more  licentiously  than  ever  their  intrigues,  ar- 
ranged since  Beale's  visit  to  me,  to  thwart  my  just  intentions  in 
Scotland,  as  the  effect  has  thoroughly  shown,  and  have  thus 
opened  a  door  for  the  ruin  of  my  son  and  myself,  I  took  your 
silence  for  refusal  and  discharged  myself  by  letters  express  to 
you  and  your  council  of  all  that  I  had  treated  with  Beale. 

"I  made  you  a  participant  of  all  that  the  king,  my  brother-in- 
law,  and  the  queen  my  mother-in-law,!  had  written  to  me  with 
their  own  hands  about  this  affair,  and  asked  your  advice  about, 
which  is  still  to  come,  although  by  it  it  was  my  intention  to  pro- 
ceed had  you  given  it  me  in  time,  or  had  you  permitted  me  to 
send  to  my  son,  and  assisted  me  in  the  overtures  I  made  you 
about  establishing  a  sound  friendship  and  perfect  understanding 
between  this  realm  for  the  future.  But  to  oblige  me  at  once  to 
follow  your  advice  before  I  could  know  what,  it  was,  and  in  the 
journey  of  our  people  to  make  mine  sut^ect  to  yours,  even  in  my 
own  country,  I  was  never  so  simple  as  even  to  think  of. 

"  And  now,  if  you  have  known  the  false  play  which  my  enemies 
have  used  in  Scotland,  to  bring  matters  to  their  present  con- 
dition,2  I  leave  it  to  your  consideration  which  of  us  has  pro- 
ceeded most  sincerely.  God  be  judge  between  them  and  me,  and 
turn  from  this  island  his  just  punishment  of  their  demerits. 
Look  once  more,  at  the  intelligence  that  my  traitor  subjects  in 
Scotland  may  have  given  you.  You  will  find,  and  I  will  main- 
tain it  before  all  Christian  princes,  that  I  have  never  done  any- 
thing to  your  prejudice,  nor  against  the  welfare  or  peace  of  this 
kingdom,  of  which  I  am  no  less  desirous  than  any  counselor  or 

1  Henry  III.  and  Catherine  de  Medicis.        2  The  Raid  of  Ruthven. 


336 


APPENDIX. 


subject  of  yours,  having  more  interest  in  it  than.  they.  It  has 
been  suggested  to  gratify  my  son  with  the  title  and  name  of  king, 
to  assm-e  him  of  the  said  title  and  the  rebels' impunity  for  all  their 
past  offenses,  and  so  to  put  all  things  in  a  condition  of  peace 
and  tranquillity  for  the  future,  without  any  innovation  whatever. 
Was  that  to  deprive  my  son  of  the  crown  ?  My  enemies,  I  be- 
lieve, do  not  wish  him  sure  of  it,  and  for  that  reason  are  quite 
content  that  he  should  possess  it  by  the  illegal  violence  of  certain 
traitors,  foes  from  of  old  of  our  race.  Was  it  to  seek  justice  for 
the  past  deeds  of  those  traitors,  justice  which  my  clemency  has 
always  surpassed  ?  An  evil  conscience  can  never  be  at  rest, 
carrying,  as  it  does,  its  chief  fear  and  greatest  trouble  contin- 
ually with  it.  Was  it  a  desire  to  change  the  repose  of  the 
country  ?  —  to  procure  it  by  a  gentle  abolition  of  all  things  past, 
and  a  general  reconciliation  of  our  subjects  ?  What  is  it  that 
my  said  enemies  fear  from  that  as  much  as  they  make  demon- 
stration of  desu-ing  it  ?  What  prejudice  could  be  done  to  you 
by  this  ?  Mark  down  and  cause  to  be  verified  what  other  thing 
there  is  if  you  please ;  I  will  answer  it  on  my  honor. 

"  Alas,  Madame,  will  you  let  yourself  be  so  blinded  by  the  arti- 
fices of  my  enemies,  who  (act)  only  to  establish  their  unjust  pre- 
tensions to  this  crown  after  you,  and  perhaps  against  you  ?  You 
suffer  them,  you  living  and  seeing  them,  to  ruin,  and  cause  cruelly 
to  perish,  those  who  are  so  near  to  you  in  heart  and  blood! 
What  honor  or  good  can  result  to  you  by  their  keeping  my 
child  so  long  separated  from  me  and  both  of  us  from  you  ? 

"  Resume  those  ancient  pledges  of  your  natural  goodness,  draw 
your  own  to  you  by  your  kindness ;  give  me  this  contentment  before 
I  die,  that,  seeing  all  things  settled  between  us,  my  soul,  freed 
from  the  body,  may  not  be  compelled  to  pour  out  its  complaints 
to  God  for  the  wrongs  you  have  suffered  to  be  done  to  us  here 
below,  but  rather,  that  departing  from  this  captivity  in  peace 
and  concord  with  you,  I  may  go  to  Him  whom  I  pray  to  inspire 
you  to  see  my  very  just  and  more  than  reasonable  complaints  and 
grievances. 

"  Sheffield,  this  8  November, 

"  Your  most  desolate,  nearest  cousin, 

"  And  affectionate  sister, 

"Marie  R." 


